I await his contribution with interest, especially as he apparently (and enthusiastically ) supports the view that physics, chemistry and biology are completely separate subjects and should be treated as such in the school curriculum. This notion is completely antithetical to the developments in science which have been witnessed over the last 50 years at least…..

How does the Secretary of State reconcile his self-serving agenda and over – generalisations about the political leanings of academics in education
with his educational background which he claims to be the best in the UK. Didn’t they teach him anything about critical thinking at Oxbridge? Perhaps a visit to Finland could be helpful…….

Mr Twigg seems to be ignoring the reality that precious few academies exist in isolation. Most function as part of a larger group or chain, with a consciously shared identity and culture.

There is also the more complex issue of what we think the role of education, schools and teachers are in our society. Should education be a market commodity or a pubic good? Can it be both? The role of schools, what counts as a good or effective teacher and so on will be different depending upon your view here. For example, if you think that it is the role of schools to offer a minority an education appropriate for political leadership and to initiate the majority into the values, attitudes and behaviour appropriate to their role as producers, workers and consumers, then the approach to curriculum development through outcomes, the view of community as territory and marketised networks, and effective teaching as a reproduction of centrally directed pedagogies are what count as good and effective. If you think that the role of the school is to initiate individuals into the values, attitudes and behaviour appropriate for active participation in democratic (in the widest sense) institutions and processes, then the approach to curriculum through process and praxis, a meaning of community that emphasises personal networks and relationships and teachers as professional and autonomous agents are what count as effective. I present this polarised view to make a point – situations are more complex, but we can’t have both transformation, creativity, critical thinking AND high compliance and accountability against non-negotiated standards that are not professionally owned. In terms of measuring pupil leaning, the same arguments apply – are we only measuring the anticipated and measurable or are we accounting for the unanticipated and unmeasurable? Democracy requires citizens who can think critically, whilst the market needs consumers who can be easily influenced by media and advertising – including parents, pupils, teachers and head teachers in our increasingly marketised education system. What is deemed important enough to measure, and which instruments are deemed to be the best ones for measuring are also to a large extent determined by your view of what an educated citizen looks like and what schools are for.

So – what counts as good CPD, what counts as a measure of effective teaching and learning depends upon your ideological position and what you think schools, teachers and pupils are for and what the point of any of them is……

Firstly, I think it’s easy to underestimate how many teachers choose the profession because they regard it is as a positive alternative to commerce. They prefer a working environment which doesn’t measure their performance closely, or link it tightly to remuneration. In a 2004 publication, “The Work of Advanced Skills Teachers” commissioned by CfBT, the researchers used a questionnaire in which they asked Advanced Skills Teachers to rank statements about knowledge, skills and understanding. Respondents were asked to rank a list of types of knowledge according to how important they felt they were in their work. The hightest ranking by far was “Excellent knowledge of your specialist subject or area” which gained a 72% response. The lowest ranking statement at 1% was, “Being able to identify and challenge under-performance in others.” Far from being the collaborative, collegiate, chummy school-improvement-angels ASTs were conceived of as being, they actually saw themselves as primarily subject experts who had no business trying to improve colleagues’ performance.

Secondly, any attempt to introduce performance related pay linked, however slightly, to pupils’ performance or results, teaches children the wrong lesson. Whether you succeed or fail isn’t down to you: it’s down to your teachers. In sport we call it blaming the ref and regard the competitors who do it with appropriate contempt.