Osted - in need of special measures

When I was a teacher (which was a long time ago), I only once had an Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) inspector observing one of my lessons. Mr C was, in my memory, a large man. He had taught modern languages in a grammar school. My class was what was once known as a ROSLA year (students compelled by government dictat to stay on a year longer than before). They were students who had not done well enough at GCSEs to take A levels, and so we had to devise a curriculum for them, which would give them decent qualifications when they left. 

As head of English, my part was steering through the innovative vocational Royal Society of Arts 'Basic Clerical Skills' module (at a similar level to NVQs). It was one of these lessons that Mr C came to witness. My students were a bunch of Oxford east enders. They were rough diamonds whom I liked. The lesson, I seem to recall, was quite mundane but very orderly. No one left their seat. No one kicked up a rumpus. I was able to go round the room with appropriately encouraging and helpful advice. With that group, it was a triumph. Not as exciting as our trips down the canal or to local historic buildings, but a triumph of self-restraint on the part of the students. Well, that was my view at least!

However Mr C didn't see it that way apparently, as the headteacher told me after. Mrs Storrar was a remarkable woman who had returned to teaching following a time in industry. And she had more faith in most of her staff, including me, than in the inspector. I can't remember what status this inspection had, but it was certainly not a whole-school inspection. As the head and I observed, Mr C had (or appeared to have) no experience of teaching our kind of students. I assume his verdict had been that my lesson had been inadequate. Since then I have been governor of a number of schools and have witnessed the more recent Ofsted régime in education - and at second-hand in social work.

I've long relished what Anton Chekhov, the Russian playwright, said about critics: "Critics are like horse-flies which hinder the horses in their ploughing of the soil. The horse works, all its muscles drawn tight like the strings on a double-bass, and a fly settles on his flanks and tickles and buzzes. And what does the fly buzz about? It scarcely knows itself; simply because it is restless and wants to proclaim: 'Look, I too am living on the earth. See, I can buzz, too, buzz about anything.'" A word of comfort to teachers when irritated by inspectors, who criticise them.... 

But the truth is that Ofsted is far worse than an irritation. Schools were once given a week or more's notice of an inspection. I believe notice now is the day before. I suppose the idea is to prevent schools rustling up paperwork to impress the inspectors arriving seven days later. "Keep them up to the mark!" In my experience in the areas of public service with which I'm familiar, there is little more than a scintilla of evidence for lack of dedication. It's true that Baroness Casey's year-long review of the Met Police revealed enough going wrong for her to describe it as institutionally sexist, racist, and homophobic, but it is a huge unwieldy institution which is asked to do too much.

But why am I writing about Ofsted now? You'll notice that I began to comment about it at the beginning of this week - this was because of the delayed local news concerning the suicide in January of Ruth Perry, headteacher of Caversham Primary School, in anticipation of a negative Ofsted one-word verdict of her respected school: "inadequate". A single word gets repeated on estate agents' details. The reaction from local heads was to take Ofsted rankings off their websites and to threaten to keep inspectors out of their schools. and to demand Ofsted suspended inspections out of respect for a good headteacher. Since then it has hit the national news, first with the head of Ofsted, the upper-crust, Amanda Spielman, whilst expressing her sympathy with Mrs Perry's family, refusing to pause inspections, and then the eye-wateringly wealthy, privately educated Rishi Sunak backing Ofsted as giving parents the information they need. I wonder whether his parents would have been satisfied with a single-word summary of his years at Stroud School. Even if it had been "Outstanding" or "Requires improvement", they would have deserved more. And that is the problem with Ofsted. "Ofsted inspections 'provide independent, up-to-date evaluations on the quality of education, safeguarding and leadership, which parents greatly rely on to give them confidence in choosing the right school for their child,' a Department of Education spokesperson said." Maybe... However, it does not really give parents a true picture of a school or organisation - because although the report is many pages long, that's not what parents look at and neither is it what teachers hear. They see and hear only the headline. 

Ruth Perry's sister, Professor Julia Waters of Reading University, had no doubt why her sister took her own life. The Caversham report was sensationalist and drawn from scant evidence. “In our (family's) opinion, the findings of Ofsted were disproportionate, unfair and, as has tragically been proven, deeply harmful in their (implied) focus on one individual.” I suppose the theory behind Ofsted inspections was a good one; indeed school inspectors have a long history. But the idea of publishing grades in order to "push up standards" dates, I think, only to 1992. It is just one example of governmental obsession with targets, like SATs, instead of education. The only competent Secretary of State I've known was Estelle Morris (now Baroness) whose term in office was far too short (2001-2). Her virtues were honesty, humility and that she had been a state school teacher. She was a breath of fresh air. Here at last was someone who knew what they were talking about. Others tend to use the position as a step up the political ladder. There seems to be an idée fixe among others to set out to oppose those they should be championing - as was revealed in the disgraceful WhatsApp exchange between the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and during lockdown. As the BBC reported, "In other WhatsApp messages released by the paper, Mr Hancock described teaching unions as 'absolute arses'.                                                 "Sir Gavin replied that they hated work"

One feels that Estelle Morris would have been on the side of teachers - which is, as every teacher knows, is the best form of pedagogy. And it is without doubt the best form of inspection. Collaboration and encouragement would be a far better way to raise educational standards than the present emotionally draining regime, which drives conscientious teachers to mental ill health and even to despair (as I have witnessed). Ofsted needs to look at itself if it really seeks to be a force for good. If its effect is drive teachers out of the profession, it is clearly of no help to children and is failing. Otherwise it should be replaced. Maybe, like the Met, it needs to be reconstituted. 

A good article on this subject can be found in the Guardian here. 

Devaluing unpaid care

 Seldom do I wander into the field of politics..., but sometimes something provokes me to put pen to paper (as we used quaintly to say). And two things have recently done that. One was the budget, and the other has been Ofsted. 

HMG profile

The urbane Jeremy Hunt's first budget contained some favourable news for me and some news which I welcomed for my family (until I learned the date of implementation for one particular measure). I suppose I should welcome the confirmation of the triple-lock on pensions, but that doesn't seem to me a priority (except as a vote catcher), but the section of the population that is really suffering from the cost of living crisis at the moment are young families - two of whom are represented in my family. So when the extension of childcare funding was trailed before the budget, I was pleased. However in the event it won't fully come into effect until September 2025 - which will not be of much use even to my youngest grandchildren. Of course the extension of the energy price cap for another three months, by when we all hope the price of energy will have come down, will help them and us. 

However my principle objection to the budget is its back-to-work agenda. It seems to me to be a move away from the family - which is the best basis for a society. We really did shoot ourselves in the foot with Brexit, didn't we? Our nurseries and hospitals, to say nothing of the farming and food industries, were dependent on EU citizens, for whom Brexit has created a hostile environment. Unsurprisingly they are reluctant to push through the barriers we've erected to keep them out. Now we desperately plead for workers from further afield to come, usually depriving domestic service sectors where their local needs are far more severe than our own. And so, while patting itself on its low unemployment level, the government is equally deperately seeking to suck every adult into the paid workforce. 

And what's the consequence? In due course every single child from the year dot will be entitled to funded care away from a parent for 30 hours a week. That will mean that, along with four others, they will have care from one adult. 

Now I have nothing against parents pursuing their own careers and fulfilling their own talents. Quite the contrary. But I do object to my government failing to reward parents caring for their own children. Had Mr Hunt included a provision to pay stay-at-home parents, acknowledging home care is quite as valid a contribution to the nation's good as nursery provision, I should have applauded him. And while he was about it, he could have properly funded baby and toddler groups and sure-start groups, instead of falsely "economising" on yet another social benefit. There's no doubt that this was an improvement on the autumn's kamikaze financial event. But, with its pension reward for the richest, who can afford to pay £60,000 (!) every year into their tax-free pension pot, it remains a monument to right-wing dogma. 

A very important article related to the Budget proposals has appeared today. 'Charities and academics criticised the move as “unconscionable”, saying it “devalues unpaid care” and would disproportionately impact single mothers, driving families into debt and vulnerable children into poverty.'

Ofsted must wait until my next post.