RIP Ofsted?

We’ve had the Big Listen. Ofsted is reforming. Gone are one word judgements. Gone are deep dives in Section 8 inspections. Coming soon, more categories for inclusion, perhaps attendance, perhaps behaviour.

Oh brave new world, oh Labour, how we love you!

I’ve voted Labour all my life, even when we were faced with the rock and the hard left place with Jeremy Corbyn. But what is happening to Ofsted helps no one.

This is Ofsted’s published mission statement:

“Ofsted aims to improve lives by raising standards in education”.

“Our values: We put children and learners first, and we are independent, evidence-led, accountable and transparent.”

Evidence led? Yes, they focus on the curriculum, spaced learning, the knowledge rich curriculum, retrieval practice, long term memory. Stuff that works, whatever the context, whatever the age.

A focus on reading? Yes, your reading ability predicts future earning - it is twice as predictive as your ability in maths.

Does this put learners first? If they can read more, know more and earn more, then can also pursue education or training to grow personally or develop financially.

Does it do what it says on the tin? Well, England is now ranked by PISA 11th for maths, 13th for science, 13th for reading. Scotland is 30th, 31st and 14th, while Wales is 33rd, 35th and 35th.

The focus on the curriculum and on reading is a huge part of this success.

Our new Chief Inspector is already backtracking on this. There will be no curriculum deep dives in Section 8 inspections.

Is that going to raise standards, or put children and learners first?

I don’t think so. But, you know, let’s keep an open mind. Let’s look at the data.

Maybe Sir Martyn has a track record of raising standards and putting learners first. He’s a MAT lead, don’t you know, of Outwood Grange Academies.

What was their Progress 8 in 2023? -0.19. A track record of making a difference at scale? Not unless every student in every school is PP - in that case -0.19 would be some achievement. But they aren’t and it isn’t.

Sir Martyn Oliver, captain ordinary.

What Needs to Be Fixed at Ofsted? (Where did it all go Wrong?)

This is what Amanda Spielman has to say in Schoolsweek:

“So much of the trouble I had came from the way the context had been changed by the ratcheting up of regulatory levers, particulary the two ‘requires improvement’ [intervention] policy. That hugely increased anxiety about inspection, predictably, which is why I advised against it.

That made Ofsted’s job progressively harder. At school level, the government wanted to sustain high-pressure, high-stakes accountability systems. I did everything I could within those constraints to make inspection as constructive and supportive as it could be.”

She liked one word judgements. These were not an issue when parents chose to flee the ‘inadequate’ and seek the ‘outstanding’. They will still do that now, with report cards.

It’s the double Requires Improvement schools that caused the problem. The government stopped using Ofsted as a tool of school improvement. Instead, they used it to force academisation. They do this, why?

More Multi Academy Trusts means less accountability for government. It creates the illusion of progress - look, we’ve intervened to help struggling schools, we’ve changed their leadership, top sliced a load of their budget, and given them over to someone who knows what they are doing. Sir Martyn Oliver, take a bow.

School Improvement Teams

Don’t worry, we will soon have a new team, set up by the DfE to help out. They will be “made up of the “best leaders and teachers in the country” and “will start to be rolled out early next year.” 

“Labour pledged before the election that the new teams would “work as partners with schools in responding to areas of weakness identified in new school report cards”.

Hmm. Weren’t Regional Commissioners supposed to do that, before they started feathering their nests, growing multi-academy trusts so that they could jump into an even better paid job, running a multi-academy trust, giving them the inside skinny on how to get the next Regional Commissioner to send more schools their way?

Thank you Sir David Carter.

Where will you find skilled school leaders, who have seen dozens, or scores of outstanding schools, and found what got them there?

And where will you find experienced leaders who have scores, or a hundred ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ schools? In MATs? At the DfE?

Hardly. It sounds like the job spec. of an HMI doesn’t it?

HMI aren’t the problem, they are the solution. If only we had the courage to use their expertise as a jack to lift schools up, rather than a hammer to beat schools down.

Is Ofsted a Hammer That Treats Each School as a Nail?

No, actually. This is what the DfE published in March 2024:

“So far in 2023/24, we have carried out 2,611 inspections. Comparing schools with the same previous grade, the inspection outcomes for schools have been more positive in 2023/24 than in 2022/23 or 2021/22. 90% of all schools are now good or outstanding, an increase from 89% in August 2023.”

90% of schools are good or outstanding. Ask any teacher, in any classroom in any part of the country if they agree with that statistic, and I’ll eat your shorts of they say yes.

If Ofsted is a hammer, it is made of rubber. They are not too hard on schools.

What About Ruth Perry?

This is what Amanda Spielman says about Ofsted’s role in the tragedy of Ruth Perry’s suicide.

“People find it very hard to separate the message and the messenger. By default, the messenger [Ofsted] is assumed to be responsible for everything. I think Ruth Perry’s sister [talked about] the “disproportionate consequences”. And that chimes with what I’ve heard many times. But that is entirely outside Ofsted control.”

These sound like weasel words, don’t they.

The Ofsted judgement was entirely within Ofsted’s control, right?

This is how Schoolsweek responded:

Editor’s note: the coroner found ‘the evidence is clear in this respect, and I find very easily that Ruth’s mental health deterioration and death was likely contributed to by the Ofsted inspection’

But what did the inspection find?

• The quality of education Good

• Behaviour and attitudes Good

• Personal development Good

• Early years provision Good

• Leadership and management Inadequate

How is this possible? How can leadership be inadequate, if every other aspect of the school is good?

Worse than this, the whole judgement - the single word grade - was inadequate. Does that make any sense to you if everything else was good?

It does when safeguarding has taken over the world. This is imposed on Ofsted by government. If safeguarding is inadequate, the school is inadequate. End of story. No ifs, no buts.

This is what the report said:

“Safeguarding

The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.

• Leaders have a weak understanding of safeguarding requirements and procedures.

• They have not exercised sufficient leadership or oversight of this important work.

• As a result, records of safeguarding concerns and the tracking of subsequent actions are poor.

• Leaders have not ensured that all required employment checks are complete for some staff employed at the school.

• These weaknesses pose potential risks to pupils.

• Some staff have not had the necessary training to be able to record concerns accurately using the school’s online system.

• However, staff know how to identify concerns about pupils and to report these to the appropriate leader.

• The pastoral support provided for pupils is a strength and they appreciate this level of care.”

So, let’s be clear.

Safeguarding was inadequate, even though the risks to children were entirely ‘potential’. No child had actually been harmed to the extent that such harm was enough to make it into the report.

To confirm that, Ofsted returned 7 months later and found safeguarding was transformed.

Can you change a “culture” so dramatically in 7 months? You can if the things you are looking at are superficial processes, if they are tick box exercises which miraculously claim to reduce incredible, potential risk.

The safeguarding agenda has gone too far. Ofsted is boxed into a corner. It isn’t a single word judgement that led to this tragedy.

It is that safeguarding alone could trigger that inadequate judgement.

There are many potential victims of safeguarding. But there is only one real victim of safeguarding holding such sway over the reputation of a school. Ruth Perry.

What Next for Schools?

Prepare for a safeguarding inspection. It is easy. Get everyone trained. Check the single central record for any gaps. Get a system for reporting problems. These are paper exercises. You can do them in a week or two.

Do a monthly audit on a random sample and find how they were followed up. Follow the trail. Do it every month, and the culture will grow. Do another random audit on the SCR every month. Tick those boxes.

Concentrate on the curriculum, spaced learning, retrieval and long term memory. Students who know and remember more will be successful.

Pay attention to assessment. Use it to measure the impact of everything you do.

Get students working hard by giving them an 80% success rate. If you keep succeeding, you recognise that hard work pays. If you keep succeeding, there is a reason to come to school.

Behaviour? That’s a dozen posts and not why you come here. I won’t give you answers if I don’t know them - it’s not my field, and there are no bulls in it, bloated from feeding…