Like a lot of people who’ve been around the education system for a while, my relationship with Ofsted is complicated. I’ve been in schools on the receiving end of inspection many times (at least 10 as a Head or MAT leader), I’ve advised and supported dozens of schools as they have gone through the process, I’ve even written a doctoral thesis on the emotional impact of Ofsted failure on Head Teachers (http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50957/ if you’re interested). Oh, and I’m an inspector, both team and lead, primary and secondary. It’s fair to say that I’ve seen it from both sides and have a pretty good idea of the process and impact.
I’ve also followed the debate the profession has had in recent times about Ofsted, particularly since the introduction of EIF. I’ve read the opinions of many colleagues for whom I have great respect, who have provided trenchant criticisms and shocking case studies, and have seen the #PauseOfsted campaign gain momentum, driven not least by my own union. Inevitably, I’ve also seen the question raised whether serving school leaders should continue to inspect.
So I’ve asked myself the same question and come to a fairly clear conclusion – I’m carrying on. I’m carrying on partly for some selfish reasons, namely that inspecting is hugely valuable for my own professional development and for my own schools. The knowledge I get from working in the inspection system, the experience of visiting a whole range of schools and observing great practice, the additional resource it brings in – all are extremely useful.
But I’m also carrying on because, on balance, I think this work is good work and makes our system better – better for children and young people and, yes, better for our profession. I say this with some trepidation because I suspect this a minority view amongst colleagues, so let me give my reasons:
We need accountability in a publicly-funded system: It’s not enough anymore to say to parents, taxpayers and politicians – leave it to us, we’re the experts. People have a right to know that public money is spent wisely and that our children are safe and well-provided for. I’ve been in education long enough to remember a time before Ofsted when there was almost no way to challenge (admittedly isolated) cases of shockingly poor practice.
Inspection is a far better form of accountability than performance tables: Our accountability system operates on two tracks – performance tables and inspection reports. Performance tables pit schools against each other, encourage damaging gaming and off-rolling, do not allow sufficiently for context, and reduce the complexity of a school’s work to a handful of narrow measures. An effective and well-run inspection system can and should avoid all these things – it can consider the full range of a school’s work (including whether or not children are safe), can highlight questionable practice, and in a criterion-based framework, inspectors do not need to consider the work of other schools when they look at one school in particular.
The new EIF is built on strong values and principles: The new framework is the biggest change to inspection since it was first introduced, and this has undoubtedly led to inconsistency as it has become embedded. It has also led to additional workload from schools that have tried to second guess Ofsted and adapt to the new approach to the curriculum. However, from my experience of the training process, I can vouch for the efforts made to ensure that inspectors understand the principles that underpin EIF, as well as having the knowledge to implement it faithfully.
At its core, it is designed to establish whether all pupils are offered a broad and challenging curriculum, it directly challenges gaming and off-rolling, it discourages practices that lead to excessive workload, such as excessive marking (with due acknowledgement to the workload created in this initial phase), it allows for context and recognises that schools may be on a journey by removing the focus on data, and it gives a genuine voice in the process to teachers and pupils. I believe that it will lead to significant improvements in the quality of middle leadership in school as the role of subject expert is given real value and purpose.
This is not a framework for the DfE, or for the mighty centralised MATs (as is currently being demonstrated). I think the problems caused by the painful process of change are obscuring the benefits of the change itself.
My experience of inspection has shown me that inspectors are committed, knowledgeable and want to support schools: You may have to take my word for it, but my experience of working on inspection is not what some might imagine. Almost everyone I’ve worked with is well-briefed, conscientious and experienced. During an inspection, there is always a strong desire to see the best in the school, and a hope that the inspection turns out to be a successful one. On the occasions when things start to go astray, inspection teams agonise over the decision. The presence of serving practitioners is valued and their perspective forms an important part of the discussion. It’s hard to relax and present a human face when the stakes are so high, but it does exist.
For what it’s worth, I think that the biggest problems with our inspection system lie in the way that outcomes are presented and used. However, the fact that information is often misused is not a convincing argument for less information.
So, I’ll carry on putting myself forward and trying to do the job to the best of my ability. I know it’s not perfect and things seem particularly strained at the moment, but the system is stronger for the presence of people who carry out their day job in school.