Targets

[Conchis]

Well, without being too specific, around the the time I resigned from classroom teaching, the following occurred amongst music teachers in nearby secondary schools.

Two nervous breakdowns
One suicide
Three good teachers hounded out by an incompetent advisor (who could have been front-page news in the post-Weinstein world).
Two teachers made ill by unreasonable demands by their head teachers. Both left their jobs. (Targets?)


This is probably the tip of the iceberg.

That's terrible. Some people will blame themselves for things that are not of their doing.

[Dave2002]

Part of the problem with targets is that they often target something very specific at the expense of something else equally important.

So, as you will know better than me, you get the situation where schools focus their efforts on those students who are marginal in terms of passing a oarticular level, and resources are diverted away from those who are perceived as having no chance of attaining that level at this time.

That is strategy. Who decides? I would question the use of the word "equally" in your original though, as that is still subjective in most instances.

If we stick with music, should a school aim to "produce" one professional concert pianist every 10 years or so, or a successful pop band every 5 years, or "simply" to get 50% of each class able to sing at sight and enjoy the experience? Who decides which is the better target?

OK - reverting back to basics - some people think it's obvious what levels should be attained in maths and English, but even there things are hopelessly flawed.

[Beef Oven!]

.......The whole problem with targets is that they are often imposed upon professionals by people with much less knowledge."

The NHS targets I quoted are based on clinical evidence. A&E, cancer, stroke, 18 week from referral to treatment etc.

But many people don't like being held to account.

[Beef Oven!]

Part of the problem with targets is that they often target something very specific at the expense of something else equally important.

So, as you will know better than me, you get the situation where schools focus their efforts on those students who are marginal in terms of passinf a oarticular level, and resources are diverted away from those who are perceived as having no chance of attaining that level at this time.

Anectdotally, I'd agree with most of that, in relation to schools.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The NHS targets I quoted are based on clinical evidence. A&E, cancer, stroke, 18 week from referral to treatment etc.

But many people don't like being held to account.

Or could it be that experience NHS staff face increasing obstacles, including unrealistic targets, resulting in them leaving in droves?

[Beef Oven!]

Or could it be that experience NHS staff face increasing obstacles, including unrealistic targets, resulting in them leaving in droves?

An urgent cancer referral from your GP, to seeing a cancer doctor at your local hospital two weeks later is highly realistic.

45 minutes from door to needle in stroke thrombolysis cases is very realistic. Ambulance paramedics are excellently trained and can diagnose and get you to the nearest stroke unit.

How much longer than 4 hours should people wait in agony in an A&E department or corridor trolly?

And so on ..............


Latest surveys seem to show that some staff groups are experiencing more leavers than joiners (leaving by no means in droves) and the reasons appear to concern the shambolic working experience.

And NHS staff are perfectly capable of creating their own obstacles like doing things that don't need to be done, not doing things that need to be done, doing things twice or three times etc

[Dave2002]

The NHS targets I quoted are based on clinical evidence. A&E, cancer, stroke, 18 week from referral to treatment etc.

But many people don't like being held to account.

Perhaps including those people who set the targets.

In some parts of our wonderful "social" system, the same money is allocated about four times over - or so it seems. How are people supposed to meet professional or other targets if resources are woefully inadequate?

I agree that in some areas those struggling to get things done may not be doing very well, or to the maximum level of efficiency, but when there really aren't resources to match activities things tend to fall apart, or hang on by a thread.

[LeMartinPecheur]

IMHO much of what is being justifiably berated in this thread stems from a deep belief in our society that everything is objectively measurable. And its corollaries: 1) if something isn't objectively measurable it can't possibly be important, and 2) if you can't justify that what you are doing is valuable on objective criteria, then you are simply stupid and should be booted out forthwith, no great loss there. After all EA, "Who actually needs music???"

Schools must be good schools with good teachers, very understandably. But just how do we measure good? ANSWER: exam results and league tables! OBJECTION (one of many, no doubt): Schools drawing pupils from deprived areas will suffer against those in ABC1 areas. ANSWER: just measure the 'value-added'. Brilliant, if you can do the stats and agree the bases of measurement and employ a good number of PhDs! To help ('massage') these objective measurements, schools can of course exclude pupils who might drag down the averages (even genius dyslexia, autism, Aspergers sufferers), which increasingly they do of course. A bit like hospitals redesignating corners of A&E as wards, plus any corridor anywhere where occupied beds (formerly known as 'patients') might get parked so they can 'achieve' their admission-time targets


As a qualified Inspector of Weights and Measures I just adore these pseudo-scientific measurement games...and park them in a special box marked "Measuring the Unmeasurable".

[Beef Oven!]

Perhaps including those people who set the targets.

In some parts of our wonderful "social" system, the same money is allocated about four times over - or so it seems. How are people supposed to meet professional or other targets if resources are woefully inadequate?

I agree that in some areas those struggling to get things done may not be doing very well, or to the maximum level of efficiency, but when there really aren't resources to match activities things tend to fall apart, or hang on by a thread.

You seem certain there's not enough resources? Very often when you drill down, you discover that what is initially described as 'not enough resources' turns out to be something else.

[Dave2002]

You seem certain there's not enough resources? Very often when you drill down, you discover that what is initially described as 'not enough resources' turns out to be something else.

Depends which system you look at. The NHS is very complex, and parts don't seem to be managed well, but other parts do run quite well. One does get suspicious when visiting some hospitals at bank holiday weekends for example. Not many doctors, but agency and other nursing staff presumably working at overtime rates.

The NHS isn't the only system though - and I am well aware of other parts of "the system" which are very underfunded. Politicians make decrees which cannot in reality be met. Perhaps in some cases they know that, and in others they do not.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Politicians make decrees which cannot in reality be met. Perhaps in some cases they know that, and in others they do not.

That's another example of the misuse of "targets". And don't get me started on hospital closures and so-called reorganisations.

[VodkaDilc]

Well, without being too specific, around the the time I resigned from classroom teaching, the following occurred amongst music teachers in nearby secondary schools.

Two nervous breakdowns
One suicide
Three good teachers hounded out by an incompetent advisor (who could have been front-page news in the post-Weinstein world).
Two teachers made ill by unreasonable demands by their head teachers. Both left their jobs. (Targets?)


This is probably the tip of the iceberg.

One more to add to the list. I got out in time and my health recovered. I know many who left it too late.

Along with Eine Alpensinfonie, I imagine, I began teaching in the early 1970s and witnessed a gradual improvement in the status and scope of Music in schools over the next twenty years. Then came the decline and the descent seems unstoppable. I have yet to see evidence that anyone cares.

[Serial_Apologist]

IMHO much of what is being justifiably berated in this thread stems from a deep belief in our society that everything is objectively measurable. And its corollaries: 1) if something isn't objectively measurable it can't possibly be important, and 2) if you can't justify that what you are doing is valuable on objective criteria, then you are simply stupid and should be booted out forthwith, no great loss there.

Exactly.

[Dave2002]

Does music as a subject to teach have potential which some other subjects do not have? Without straying too far from PC correctness, some subjects such as maths are likely to be out of reach at anything other than a modest level for around 70% of the school population, and some of the more interesting parts of maths can perhaps only be tackled by 5-10% of students. The idea that everyone can learn maths even to a modest level is, IMO, a false one.

It may be that music and art are subjects which many students could study and make useful contributions to, as well as gaining enjoyment and understanding, so rather than pushing them out of the curriculum perhaps greater efforts should be made to retain and expand them within schools.

[VodkaDilc]

It may be that music and art are subjects which many students could study and make useful contributions to, as well as gaining enjoyment and understanding, so rather than pushing them out of the curriculum perhaps greater efforts should be made to retain and expand them within schools.

This was the widely-held view from the late 60s until the early 90s (very approximate dates). Sadly, everything is now based on usefulness in the jobs market.