Innovation is risky ... what happens if it doesn't work?
Reading last weeks TES, I came across an article in which OFSTED is reported to have given a 'thumbs down' to themed lessons. Two Essex schools highlighted by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) as innovative and "putting together an excellent curriculum", were reported to be 'inadequate'. Both had implemented an 'integrated approach' that organises lessons by themes rather than traditional subjects. This approach is exemplified by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts' (RSA) 'Opening Minds', recently in the news for their Tipton Academy. One of the Essex schools ins now in special measures.
The reports highlighted a 'lack of academic challenge'; identified that some teachers lack the "subject knowledge or skills they need to implement the colleges thematic lessons successfully"; the thematic approach often resulted in inaccurate marking against national curriculum standards.
Rita Gardner, director of the Royal Geographical Society told MP's last week "I do not think that, for many schools, integrated learning is a good
way of organising the teaching and learning of the curriculum".
The Head is quoted as saying "we were too ambitious".
I have seen the approach at work in three schools, one of which is closely linked to the Chafford Hundred model, and I was impressed by two aspects: the group ethos engaged pupils and enthusiastic teachers were key. It can and does work for young people but making it happen is problematic!
Together with my recent post on the Futurelab 'Enquiring Minds' report, a picture is starting to emerge that highlights a divergence between the neo-progressive approaches offered by educational evangelists and a framework of inspection and testing. At every step new approaches require adaptive and super-competent teachers. Teachers are directly accountable if they fail to meet the only two criteria that matter to a school ... exam / test results and inspection reports. Radical change is scary, because if it doesn't work children aren't given a second chance to go back through the system. Commentators often refer to the current system being so poor that we can afford to take risks however; many don't actually recognise the current system as 'broken' as most parents have an ultra conservative view of education. Radical change must be tested which is why research and innovation is valuable, but do we need to learn how to react when things don't work out the way we thought.