The Ulster Teachers’ Union has almost 7,000 members and represents teachers in nursery, primary, secondary (including grammar) and special schools in Northern Ireland. The UTU is based in Belfast and reflects the voice of local teachers.

The UTU welcomes the opportunity to respond to this significant document. The UTU is, however, concerned that this is yet another example of practice from England and Wales being transported to Northern Ireland as the ideas contained in the document resemble the policy on “Special Measures” that pertains there.

While the UTU recognises that there will be schools that require additional help and support, it is extremely concerned about the emphasis in the consultation document on accountability and data collection. There is no acknowledgement of the varying rates of progress of pupils and how this would be accommodated in analysing the data gathered.

The UTU is also very concerned about publishing of results on the categorisation of schools that will inevitably lead to sensationalist reporting of inspection results in the press.

A further concern for UTU would be the damaging effect on morale of those teachers who are performing well but whose school, for whatever reason, achieves a low grade in the inspection process. The UTU also has concerns about the impact on teachers’ health and wellbeing, particularly the in relation to the workload issues that are an almost inevitable consequence of the implementation of this policy.

The use of measurement in respect of educational outcomes must be carefully handled. Not all the aspects of what a school does can be easily measured and certainly the UTU would challenge the concept of “Educational Accountability”. Some of he “Quality Indicators” are variables over which the staff of the school has no control – for example level of suspensions and expulsions, complaints against a school, etc. Others are dependent on the level of resourcing available to a school – quality of accommodation, range of extra-curricular activities on offer, etc. The UTU would wish to highlight the need to take account of the degree of social disadvantage in any assessment of a school’s ability to meet targets.

The UTU welcomes, and has always supported, the use of the self-evaluation process in schools but has concerns that there is reference in the consultation document to the fact that “ not enough use is made of data in this process”. If self-evaluation becomes another statistical exercise then it will lose much of its relevance. Much useful self-evaluative work is done by teachers as a matter of course in their day-to-day teaching without actually recording anything.

The UTU would have concerns about the “reward and punish” approach that is suggested. In some cases the schools that are “failing” are doing so because of lack of resources and falling morale. The UTU believes that there must be positive means of assisting these schools to correct any deficiencies. Urgent intervention in the form of additional funding is needed in many schools to ensure that they can address particular difficulties before they become serious.

It is correct to say that “school improvement cannot sit in isolation from other aspects of education” but equally it must be acknowledged that the vast array of initiatives – such as extended schools, specialist schools, revised curriculum, teacher education, the review of Special Educational Needs, the draft Sustainable Schools policy and the revised Literacy and Numeracy Strategy – are already putting huge pressures on schools. The additional pressure of a School Improvement Policy that measures and analyses data in order to reward or punish will simply add to the stress levels. The result may well be that instead of school improvement we will have school meltdown in many cases.

The UTU supports the concept of every school ensuring that all pupils are given every opportunity to fulfil their potential and of raising standards to realistic levels. The UTU has concerns, however, that constant “raising the bar” is unrealistic and indeed could be counterproductive since many schools will already be working at their maximum level. The A-level results are testament to the effect “improvement” can have on the system – because of the government’s desire for higher results the universities now have great difficulty in differentiating between students since so many of them have achieved “top” grades.

The UTU believes that until the fundamental structure of post-primary schooling is tackled then there will inevitably be variations in the outcomes achieved by schools. There is an acknowledgement that at the upper end the academic attainment levels are high but that at the lower end there is a long tail of underachievement. Perhaps when the system stops creating 11-plus “failures” then this problem will be addressed. The “failure” is in the system, not the pupils or teachers.

The UTU believes that if government is serious about raising standards of Literacy and Numeracy then once again it is an organisational issue. If children were taught in smaller classes in primary schools then a lot of the difficulties would be overcome.

There is no reference anywhere in the policy to the fact that account must be taken of the impact of inclusion of pupils with special needs in mainstream schools and also the requirement on schools to meet the differing needs of pupils from a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds.

It must be noted that you do not solve a problem by measuring it, you need to look at the bigger picture and examine all the factors that contribute to the problem and put them to rights. Equally, saying that “improvement and raising acheivement is, above all, the responsibility of the school” does not absolve the Department of Education from responsibility. Often the inability to raise standards is due to DE policy. If schools were fully funded, if the pupil teacher ration was lower and if teachers were afforded the time they need for planning and preparation then undoubtedly standards would be raised.

The UTU would wish to know what criteria would be used in order for ESA to request a formal inspection. Inspections under the current ETI systems are accepted but undoubtedly put additional strain on teachers. The UTU fears that ESA may use the threat of inspection as a “stick” and that will create even more stress in schools.

The UTU deplores the tone of the document in relation to accountability. Firstly, there is “Educational Accountability”, a term which is a new one for schools and is of questionable origin. The “Quality Indicators” are, as previously stated, not consistently under the control of the staff and yet the school is to be measured by them. Secondly, there is the statement that the “Chief Executive of the ESA will be held accountable for the performance of schools which will undoubtedly result on him putting pressure on schools to “perform”. Thirdly, the Board of Governors is accountable for quality of provision and the standards attained by pupils and are responsible for “ensuring that the Principal and staff put in place all the necessary arrangements and mechanisms to help pupils succeed”. Principals and teachers are professionals – they do not need to have pressure put on them in this way.

RESPONSE OF THE ULSTER TEACHERS’ UNION TO “EVERY SCHOOL A GOOD SCHOOL”