LISTENING BUT NOT HEARING – A MEETING WITH LIZ TRUSS
By Dr Debra Kidd
It was with both scepticism and hope that I and other teachers attended a meeting with
Liz Truss, Minister for Education and Childcare, and DfE civil servants on 8 April 2014.
The meeting was part of the DfE’s strategy to engage with those teachers who have
high numbers of Twitter followers and/or blog readers in order to promote the idea that
the Department is listening to teachers on the ground. My experience was that some
listened more than others; and some nodded but did not hear.
The meeting was focused on primary education, in particular the curriculum and the
assessment models to be introduced from September 2014, and it was clear from the
outset that the three civil servants were keen to engage and learn. It also became clear,
that whatever they (or we) thought, the priorities of ‘The Minister’, were uppermost in
their thoughts. Whenever a point was made, the reply would come “Ah, now if I were the
minister, I would say…” and it was clear that what the Minister would say was…..

“That we are falling behind other countries…..

That literacy and numeracy standards in this country are too low….

That we have listened to concerns and changed the curriculum accordingly….

That schools have unprecedented freedom….”
And indeed, when she finally arrived, it became clear that the script had been well
rehearsed as these were the statements the Minister made more than once.
Ms Truss made it clear that she wanted to listen and was interested in what we had to
say. However, she shook our words out of her head as she was reminded of the
statistical weaknesses of PISA or that other successful countries were not dependent on
base line testing children at age four, seven and 11 to achieve their success.
As far as the National Curriculum was concerned, we felt that the changes that had been
made following the draft represented little change. We were concerned that the
curriculum cannot be considered to be ‘National’ if academies and free schools do not
have to teach it. There was no response to this.
Moreover, we wanted to stress that the impact of high stakes testing and the emphasis
on literacy and numeracy skills over curriculum knowledge ignored research that
suggests that if we really want to close the gap for poorer children, we should attend to
vocabulary and cultural capital. This research encompasses a broad political church,
coming from E.D. Hirsch, beloved of Michael Gove, who cautions against an
overemphasis on literacy skill at the expense of vocabulary and knowledge, as well as
members of the ‘left wing blob’. The Minister was unwilling to discuss that it is those
poorer children who are constantly withdrawn for intervention while the others have their
general knowledge, vocabulary and arts education broadened in class. The gap widens.
The bulk of the discussion, however, centred around the role that high stakes testing has
on school behaviour and culture. Ms Truss was keen to point out that many of the
Government’s measures had been designed to end the ‘game play’ that it was claimed
teachers had engaged in to secure results. In the middle of the meeting, the Minister left
1
to vote in the Commons for a motion in a debate that she had not listened to or taken
part in. This made me think:
What better example of game play can there be? MPs are elected to vote for issues on
behalf of their constituents they represent. But their voting outcomes are so closely tied
to their party allegiances that the actual issues or debates, regardless of how they
impact on their constituents, are irrelevant. MPs act in the interests of their party to
secure their survival. Tell me Liz, how different is that to acting in the interests of your
school to secure your survival?
However, what I actually said was:“I’d like to be clear here that until teachers’ pay and performance is uncoupled from high
stakes testing, there will be what you call ‘game play’ and I prefer to call ‘survival
strategy’ because when your pay, your job, your mortgage, the future of your own
children depend on you delivering results, you will do ANYTHING to achieve them.”
There was silence. It was clear that the cheating and failure narrative has become so
embedded in the Department, that the possibility that these stories might be rooted in
human fear, or in the actions of Government, was so alien it could not be processed.
The lack of trust in the teaching profession is profound, even as it is wrapped up in the
appearance of freedom. There was little appetite for the thought that the reason that
teachers are not embracing the ‘freedom’ of getting rid of levels or of teaching in their
own way, is evidence of a form of Stockholm syndrome. Simply opening the door alone
will not lead to people running out into the street. Especially not when there are still
guard dogs on the pavement.
It became very clear early on in the meeting that no-one at the DfE had properly
considered the impact of testing and the removal of levels on schools. The process had
begun with ‘what shall we ask them to teach?’ with the assumption that a programme of
study would equate to an enacted curriculum. There seemed to be little understanding
that within our accountability system, the question most senior leaders ask is ‘how are
we going to be judged?’ The civil servants and minister seemed genuinely surprised and
disappointed that most schools were keeping levels. How could we turn this freedom
down?
“Because,” we said “if we are to be judged on how well children make progress, we have
to be able to measure them, even when we know that the measurements we have are a
nonsense.” So we asked, how are children now going to be measured? In a nutshell:1. By a raw score at key points of data collection (end of KS). There will be no guidance
to schools on the assessment criteria for external tests – it is felt that the curriculum
guidance itself is sufficient.
2. From this, schools are encouraged to develop their own competency criteria. This
child can…. and build from there. This can form part of the progress conversation with
Ofsted.
There really was nothing clearer offered. If we are brave as a profession, there is a
genuine opportunity to move away from levels and see evidencing progress as a
combination between conversation and selection of work in which children and teachers
can articulate what they can and can’t yet do.
2
But what about all those colour-coded spreadsheets showing expected levels of
progress in schools? Ms Truss seemed aghast that they even existed – when told that I
spent up to 15 hours tracking children on spreadsheets and writing action plans for them
when I knew that a) the data wasn’t really accurate and b) that I’d be better off teaching
them than writing action plans, she stared, mouth agape and rolled her eyes. She
seemed to really have no idea that this was what teachers spent time doing. “But who on
earth would ask you to do such a thing? Where is this coming from?” she said. Senior
leaders, we replied and they’re doing it because they think it is what Ofsted expect.
According to Government, progress is evidenced by stage to stage examination results.
Not term to term or year to year leveling. This discrepancy between the view from the
bridge and the view from the street is huge and made us all realise that at the end of the
day, what a Minister says is irrelevant. Ofsted trumps Government every time. While it
became clear that reducing pressure from Ofsted is something that Government feels is
important, the changes proposed worry me. Let’s imagine that three things happen in
the next six months:
1. Michael “there will be blood on the floor” Wilshaw is replaced by the much less
combative Michael Cladingbowl – i.e. a new sheriff.
2. Classroom observations stop being graded by Ofsted.
3. Power is pulled back from the privatised franchises and more centralised inspectors
are appointed – Ofsted is rebranded, streamlined, softer. What would happen?
Teachers would dance in the streets I guess. They’d demand the end of mocksteds,
graded observations from senior leaders, they might even vote Conservative….but what
would have changed? Really? If you reduce the power of a police force but the laws and
punishments remain intact, has anything really changed? Are Ofsted to blame for the
problems we have in schools really? To be honest I don’t think so. I think they’re in
danger of becoming the scapegoat that falls in order to protect the system that is really
at the root of our problems – the system of over-reliance on high stakes testing and the
ways schools are almost entirely judged on data. And let’s not be under any illusions –
take classroom observations out of the equation and you are left with one thing. Data.
No wonder we are clinging on to the flotsam of levels.
We need to develop an assessment system fit for purpose – one that recognises the
limits of testing and instead moves towards holistic assessment of children’s abilities to
articulate, write in extended ways, interpret information and present, but until
Government accepts this, we will be stuck with the image of Ofsted as a data monster.
This was not a priority for the Minister. Instead, she seemed somewhat fixated on
reducing teacher workload by providing them with text books.
While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using a text book, I think we should be
careful about the agenda here. The Minister could not understand how it might be
difficult to differentiate in a text book – “But why do you need to differentiate?” she asked,
genuinely perplexed. It seemed that she really thought that text books would make our
lives easier. And she gave a speech to the same effect the following week, suggesting
that while she might have listened, she certainly didn’t hear. She didn’t hear us say that
an easier life is not what we need, but a more relevant life spent doing that which is
important – teaching – was what we wanted. She didn’t hear us say that we wanted
freedom to be creative, not to be tied to a pre-packaged curriculum provided by Pearson
3
tablets and textbooks. She didn’t hear us weep for the children we see losing their love
of learning as they are drilled for tests through school. Like the PR consultant in the
comedy W1A, she might as well have said “I totally am listening, but what it is, is you
guys, are not saying the right stuff.”
4