Consultants' mixed messages hinder primary progress

13th January 2006 at 00:00
Teachers: are you confused about what's expected of you? Do you wonder why the right hand of Government is dissociated from the left? Now there's evidence from Ofsted to support your paranoia. Last month's annual report on the impact of the primary strategy points to "barriers to improvement"

found in some local authorities. In one un-named-and-un-shamed LEA, "conflicting advice provided by strategy consultants and school improvement advisers led to confusion in schools." The strategy people demanded a tightly-structured approach based on the original 1998 national literacy guidance, while the local authority promoted "greater flexibility along with greater emphasis on literacy teaching across subjects".

Teachers in that authority probably didn't need Ofsted to tell them that they were confused, but primary strategy leaders plainly did. The strategy's official policy has long since moved away from strict adherence.

Why did no one tell these consultants?

Ofsted too can have unreasonable expectations. Pointing to the phenomenon known variously as the Neanderthal year group or the year group from hell, the inspectors tell schools to pull their socks up. They shouldn't let these awkward so-andsos interfere with steady improvement in results.

Of course, they don't put it that way. "Some schools are too quick to excuse lower attainment by pointing to differences between cohorts of pupils and do not take sufficient responsibility or action to identify and tackle underachievement early enough to offset any specific year group issues", they say. Wasn't it the very recently departed chief inspector David Bell who pointed out three years ago that almost every schools contains a group of children whose behaviour is so bad they are vitually impossible to teach? Whatever miracles teachers - or even programmes from the primary strategy - work with these children are unlikely to show up in the level 4 league tables.

And incidentally, the performance of primary strategy interventions is rather mixed as well. The intensifying support programme, which helps low-achieving primaries identify and focus on specific elements of literacy and numeracy that are holding them back, gets good marks. But the primary leadership programme is held back because some of its consultant heads, who help other leaders devise ways to improve schools, have not been properly equipped for the job.


Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today