
In January 2021 I made the unusual move from the independent to the state school sector. After 21 years working in international schools, I had never worked in a state school, so my news was met with many a raised eyebrow among my peers.
But for me it had been a relatively easy decision to make: growing up in a single-parent family on a council estate, my own education at a comprehensive school in Stoke-on-Trent, in the north of England, really did give me choices in life that I otherwise would not have had.
So it seemed natural and appropriate to move to the public sector and support the development of an International Baccalaureate (IB) state school to give similar opportunities for success to its students.
“It has been a steep learning curve at times.”
This move from the private to the public sector, has, unsurprisingly, been an eyeopener. I have enjoyed learning 鈥 and it was a very steep learning curve at times 鈥 the fine details of the way the state sector operates: what it values, what it asks of teachers and school leaders, and the best ways to try make a positive impact on the lives of young people given relatively limited resources.
My school, , is a non-selective, state-funded, single academy trust, serving a diverse community in Central London. A single sponsor academy, 46 per cent of the approximately 1130 students (ages 11-19) are (as at the January 2023 census) eligible for free school meals, 57 per cent speak English as an additional language, and 17 per cent of students access Special Educational Needs support.
More than 60 languages are spoken among the student body. Westminster Academy is one of only three non-fee-paying schools in London to offer the IB Diploma, and one of only two schools in London to offer both the IB Diploma Programme and IB Career-Related Programme.
It is as 鈥渋nternational鈥 as any school at which I鈥檝e worked, and it is impossible to avoid comparisons with international schools in the private sector. There are two particularly frustrating contrasts which I find myself pondering time and time again.
The first is the distinct difference in the time teachers are given to plan, collaborate and think meaningfully about their work. In the international schools at which I鈥檝e worked, a teacher would typically be teaching 66-75 per cent 聽of the lesson time in a week. This gives great potential for building an exciting, relevant curriculum that allows students to make connections across different fields of study.
“The state school teacher’s job leaves little time and energy to think about and discuss what they do.”
It means teaching does not become static: teachers have the time to research, discuss and implement interesting new teaching strategies. It enables teachers to pursue other areas of interest, such as running extra-curricular activities, or simply be less busy, resulting in a calmer classroom presence and in turn a calmer working and learning environment.
In contrast, in English state schools like mine, teachers are expected to teach approximately 90 per cent of weekly lesson time, leaving just 10 per cent for them to plan the following week’s lessons. At my current school, Westminster Academy, teachers teach 16 lessons out of a 20-lesson week and also see their tutor group each day. Like all teachers, they are effectively writing and performing 16 one-act plays per week, every week, for seven week 鈥渟easons鈥.
Teachers also have to gauge the 鈥渁udience response鈥 to each of those 16 plays: did the students learn what was intended? If not, why not and how does next week’s lesson script need to be adjusted as a result?
My point is simply that good teaching is very tiring, both mentally and physically, and that a state school teacher’s job in England leaves very little time and energy for them to think about and discuss what they do, in order to improve it.
At Westminster Academy I am fortunate to be among colleagues who are never complacent in their teaching, and are committed to continuous professional development (CPD) to ensure that learning is active and relevant. But state school leaders have difficult decisions to make about how to budget for effective CPD, and how to motivate overworked teachers to engage enthusiastically in collaborative CPD when their days are already long and intense.
“Educators who only know Ofsted may not realise that helping schools improve does not have to be intimidating.”
The second jarring contrast with the private international school sector is the ethos and process of school inspections. As a Council of International Schools (CIS) accreditation team chair/member, I am privileged to read detailed and thoughtful self-evaluations carried out by schools, which my team-mates and I will then seek to validate and, where appropriate, challenge as critical friends.
The school knows when we will be visiting and it knows we are visiting as collaborators. Meanwhile, my wonderful colleagues at Westminster Academy and I have been wondering for some time if Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, Children鈥檚 Services and Skills: the school inspection service for England) will call this week or next month or…
Educators who have only experienced Ofsted may not realise that helping schools improve does not have to be unpredictable or intimidating. I have been involved in numerous accreditation/self-evaluation/authorisation processes during my career, as either a visiting team member or as host school teacher/leader. Whether those processes involve IB, CIS, Accrediting Commission for Schools Western Association of Schools & Colleges (ACS WASC), NEASC, or MSA, they all have features in common, including:
- A commitment to improving students鈥 learning and wellbeing;
- A commitment to supporting the school, collaboratively, in its own efforts to self-reflect and improve;
- A clear process timeline, with visit dates agreed well in advance.
So it baffles me that Ofsted simply announces its inspections, seemingly at random, for the next day, knowing the anxiety that it creates in schools, both during the periods of uncertainty before a visit is announced and then during the period of certainty after 鈥淭he Call鈥.
“Why not work with schools in the lead-up to a pre-scheduled visit, to ensure the school is well prepared?”
I imagine there鈥檚 a rationale along the lines of 鈥渨e want to see the real school, not a prepared fa莽ade鈥 but why not give schools a chance to show their best? Why not work with schools in the lead-up to a pre-scheduled visit, to ensure the school is well prepared?
The current Ofsted approach is like telling a learner on one random day that 鈥測our all-important external assessment is tomorrow鈥.
As an aside, imagine if the 拢200m per annum spent on GCSE exam fees (estimate quoted in the Times Education Commission report of June 2022) was used to fund an Ofsted replacement body/process that *supported* school improvement in collaboration with school heads …
Postscript 鈥
Merely hours after reflecting on the topic of inspection for this article, there was a knock on my office door. 鈥淪orry for interrupting your meeting鈥, said my COO, 鈥渂ut Ofsted is on the phone …鈥
So I have now experienced an Ofsted inspection, which concluded yesterday. There鈥檚 no great time for an Ofsted inspection, but this was definitely one of the worst: the last week of a very busy first half-term. Unsurprisingly, my colleagues dug deep in a truly inspiring manner, leaving me filled with admiration and pride.
“The inspection team was professional and considerate.”
There is a lot for me to process and reflect on, but the inspection went very well, for two main reasons: We were well prepared, but not in a 鈥渓astminute.com鈥, panicky way. Rather, we have been discussing for several years, in an authentic manner, how well we are serving our students and what we might do better.
We have an honest, evolving self-evaluation and a clear set of strategic educational goals. Everyone is 鈥渞owing in the same direction鈥 and the inspection team clearly recognised that and agreed with every grade in our self-evaluation. Secondly, the inspection team was professional and considerate. As with all forms of feedback, it鈥檚 inevitably better received if it is delivered in a kind, thoughtful manner.
I have concluded that Ofsted is as effective at measuring school quality as GCSEs are at measuring meaningful student learning. Both claim to evaluate large numbers of criteria 鈥 which involve multiple years鈥 development on the part of the student/school 鈥 in a single, high stakes assessment, resulting in a single grade. A single grade for such complex endeavours, and with such significant consequences for the student and the school. At least exam boards tell us when the GCSE assessments will happen, I suppose.
Dr Paul Wood is Principal and CEO of Westminster Academy, London, having previously spent 21 years at independent international schools in Japan, Tanzania, China and London.
This article first appeared in the latest edition of International School magazine, out soon.