31–40 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Also what does software have to do with that case?
They're state employees. That's not how things work in the public sector. I mean we all get OKRs, objectives etc but government employees are a special case.
For context, Ofsted is the much-maligned government inspectorate of schools in England. They are currently under increased scrutiny following an inquest into the suicide of a headteacher following an inspection that concluded at the end of last year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943
>>much maligned Yes, by teachers and their unions. Parents generally like it and choose schools based on its ratings which are generally credible.
For instance, in the case of that headteacher, I personally know that her school was one of the most highly regarded, with the best results, in town. The headteacher even acted as a consultant to other schools and had been at that school for about 15 years.
Then one day, and one day only, Ofsted comes and decrees that the school is OK but that the "leadership" is poor, with tragic consequences. The outpouring of support from parents was huge and anger towards Ofsted very real.
For context, Ofsted is the much-maligned government inspectorate of schools in England. They are currently under increased scrutiny following an inquest into the suicide of a headteacher following an inspection that concluded at the end of last year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943
I hope people think more about cases like this and the Post Office when they go to say “it’s not like we’re curing cancer” or “my bad code isn’t a matter of life or death”. You might be far removed from the implications of doing a poor job but that doesn’t mean everyone else is.
* Collect together a bunch of metrics of each school. Eg. student test scores, parent satisfaction scores, number of police callouts to the school, number of leaks in the school roof. Also include metrics that aren't obviously good/bad: Number of acres of playgrounds, average tenure of staff, etc.
* Gather data of the success of past students, 30-50 years on. For example, employment rate, total earnings, percentage convicted, percentage in good health.
* Build a model to predict success metrics from the school metrics.
* To rate a school, go collect the school metrics, then run through the model to predict future success metrics. That is your rating.
Sure, such an approach has the correlation/causation problem. But this is self-correcting if schools try to optimize their scores as the models are rebuilt each year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Are you suggesting this is a binary decision, where the only options is choosing "more oversight" or "less oversight"?
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.
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.
For context, Ofsted is the much-maligned government inspectorate of schools in England. They are currently under increased scrutiny following an inquest into the suicide of a headteacher following an inspection that concluded at the end of last year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943
>>much maligned Yes, by teachers and their unions. Parents generally like it and choose schools based on its ratings which are generally credible.
Edit: to make it more clear, parents may seem to like this ofsted thing at a point when they don't have any other source and they don't know better.
How often does their IT fail? Outsourced to Crapita or Fooljitsu by any chance? With Google Docs/Office 365 the last time I lost a full document is years ago now. I am old enough to have stored my laptop in the fridge when writing my PhD thesis, to keep the fault rate down. However, that is when hard drives where still mechanical, and online backups not a common thing.
I don't know, but offstead things might contain "incidents" with child names and whatnot. Google Docs may not comply with the standards needed. I think the bigger clouds have the security levels, but there may be costs involved. Don't know basically but it might be a deal breaker.
Until the government gets better at overseeing such large projects, this will keep on happening. However, as governments not spending their own money, but tax payers money instead, there is little incentive.
Here is how I would inspect schools: * Collect together a bunch of metrics of each school. Eg. student test scores, parent satisfaction scores, number of police callouts to the school, number of leaks in the school roof. Also include metrics that aren't obviously good/bad: Number of acres of playgrounds, average tenure of staff, etc. * Gather data of the success of past students, 30-50 years on. For example, employme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope people think more about cases like this and the Post Office when they go to say “it’s not like we’re curing cancer” or “my bad code isn’t a matter of life or death”. You might be far removed from the implications of doing a poor job but that doesn’t mean everyone else is.
While I do agree in principle, I think it's also the case that "the software" has been used as a convenient scapegoat and cover for what were incredibly poor practices and dishonest, irresponsible conduct. The fact that software is involved is in some ways a side issue - and while I do agree we as techies do need to consider the responsibility that we have, I'm equally frustrated how the narrative in the Post Office…
I do agree with you that Ofsted will likely use the same deflection tactics.
It is a failure of all of the humans involved. Whether it is inadequate acceptance testing, prematurely closed bug reports, optimizing for [unreasonable] timelines, or lack of oversight (and to be clear, I am not advocating for micromanagement).
I feel both of these statements are true: 1) certain people bear more fault than others and 2) developers aren't blameless.
I would like us to reduce our "blame surface area" with a reasonable amount of effort over what we _can_ control.
Here is how I would inspect schools: * Collect together a bunch of metrics of each school. Eg. student test scores, parent satisfaction scores, number of police callouts to the school, number of leaks in the school roof. Also include metrics that aren't obviously good/bad: Number of acres of playgrounds, average tenure of staff, etc. * Gather data of the success of past students, 30-50 years on. For example, employme…
All these metrics are easily manipulated. Test scores can be manipulated by giving easier tests. Measuring number of police call-outs just encourages not calling police on emergencies.