ABSTRACT
For example, is the current practice of graded lesson observation still fi t for purpose? Why do we insist on assessing the performance of teachers against this arbitrary Ofsted 4-point scale? As other researchers have argued, ‘there is no published research which confi rms that meaningful grading is possible’ (Cope et al 2003: 683) and yet it continues to be the dominant and preferred model of most colleges and schools. Other professions such as medicine and law are not subjected to this arbitrary system of measurement. Why therefore should teachers be? What purpose does it serve? Who benefi ts from such practice? Doctors, for example, are either deemed ‘fi t to practise’ or not. Why cannot the same rules apply to teachers? Whilst there are and always will be differences of opinion across the relevant stakeholder groups in education as to what constitutes a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ teacher, it would seem a much more realistic and achievable target to establish a consensus and consistency about judgements relating to ‘fi tness to practise’ and whether a teacher is deemed competent or not. This would in no way mean settling for mediocrity or represent a threat to the ‘pursuit of excellence’ as neoliberal policymakers might argue, but would be an acceptance that teaching is not an exact science and that even the most ‘outstanding’ teachers are not and cannot be outstanding in every lesson they teach.
