The Response

As the dust settles on Amanda Spielman's long-awaited response to the recent Ofsted scrutiny, and we all begin to wonder what next, here's a few ideas about what she really could have said.

 1.    ‘We need a new, different framework.’
‍In recent years, Ofsted have slipped into dictating how a school should do things. This makes it easier to inspect, and after asking schools to write their curriculum, assess without levels, and with less emphasis on headline data ,inspection had become way too subjective for them. One thing that we then see is that whatever Ofsted preach and prioritise, schools will adopt. If we have a school that teaches phonics really well and has a history of this, they could be forced to ditch what they do and start again, only for the benefit of inspection. Or we may have a school with a fantastic, rich and relevant curriculum, but then buys in schemes because it's easier to 'pass' inspection. Take the 3 i's for example, there's nothing wrong with the principles of this, but it doesn't have to be the rule. When a school spends years trying to workout what inspectors want to see and it's still not right, it should be right to sit down and see that the problem may lie with the original brief, and not the school after all. If you need to overwhelm schools with hours of instructional Youtube videos, it's really never going to work. Adversely, take the idea that inspectors don't need to see planning. The perception could be that planning is not important, and where I've seen this, there can be much bigger problems. We can move away from all of this by considering point number 2.

‍2.    ‘ We love a good school self-evaluation.’
‍I like the idea of a strategic self-evaluation. This was a good idea by Ofsted.. Thankfully it has evolved from a 60 page evidence chain to what can be a neatly curated assessment of how well a school knows itself. Good strategic planning based on evidence, and ultimately improving outcomes. This can be done in partnership with the LA, diocese MAT or whoever. Schools have created some powerful partnerships and have access to more expertise. But that's little use if all you are doing is deep dives, to prepare or to get good at deep dives. Or working on the unnecessary curriculum or phonics changes just to fall into line. 

'Schools have created some powerful partnerships and have access to more expertise. But that's little use if all you are doing is deep dives, to prepare or to get good at deep dives.'

‍3.    ‘Let’s get back to teaching and learning.’
‍I've sat in many inspection feedback meetings and there's little mention of how capable the teachers are. If we consider career stage, experience and expertise, we can measure the schools' capabilities fairly. We can nurture young teachers, helping them to secure knowledge and confidence. If the teaching and learning is effective, and we can validate this, then we can deliver good provision. Simple. This also means that the school will then prioritise their development of good teaching (remember I mentioned that whatever Ofsted prioritise?). This can be done with genuine professional dialogue and collaboration rather than fear and appraisal. It also gives recognition to the fundamental, core components of good teaching, such as planning, assessment, inclusion and pedagogy. 

‍4.    ‘ We’re prioritising good leadership and the capacity for sustained improvement.'
’Remember this one? I liked it. It made good sense. If the school can accurately self-evaluate and self-improve, then we can have confidence moving forwards. It's a really good one to explore because it promotes the right things. We can also help new leaders to work effectively. The current expectations for subject leadership are unrealistic and misplaced. This is how Ofsted quality assure how the school quality assures. It's more about accountability and coverage, and not much about genuine leadership. The difference between leading multiple subjects in a small schools compared to very large schools has not been thought through. It's one size fits all, because schools fear deviating from the original brief.
Being a headteacher or school leader isn't easy, and we want to make good, distributed leadership sustainable. The way to do this is to work with leaders and to see their strategic planning, knowledge, leadership team and external partnerships. I also think it's ok to ask how a headteacher is doing. There's a deep-rooted problem at Ofsted with etiquette and the assumption that being stern and uncompromising makes it easier to deliver bad news. It's old fashioned and short sighted. You can be a compassionate person and still have high expectations.  

'The current expectations for subject leadership are unrealistic and misplaced. This is how Ofsted quality assure how the school quality assures.'

 5. ‘The terminology is all wrong, sorry.’
‍Ok so I’m pushing it now, but we can’t deny the collateral damage from high stakes inspections. When Gove decided that 'satisfactory' was no longer part of the English language, it was replaced with the passive aggressive 'Requires Improvement'. This was intentional and it worked. In the short term. Probably long enough to score political points from the headlines. But the truth is that it's a stick and one that we've all had to live with for too long. It needs challenging. Short term improvements through fear and intimidation has led to longer term root damage. I don't even think that it improves schools anymore. If you're going to have to have grading, I’m ok with the right rubric. But let’s consider the big picture and the long-term. We all see now that the shop-floor implications of RI are all about failure. Schools can get beaten up. When we put RI next to good, we have a pass or fail grading system. You could be just good enough to be good, or just failing enough to be RI and the implications are very different. That’s illogical. I don't actually buy that families make decision based only on this, otherwise the only over-subscribed schools would be the 'Outstanding' ones. Ofsted have prided themselves on these judgements because it implies that their uncompromising expectations must be high and that they’re doing it for the children, but it's now just looking more like smoke and mirrors. I’m not sure now that many inspectors buy this either. Let's not forget that the original (and unchanged)definition of RI is still 'an adequate standard of education'. If this is the case, why put a school on a possible pathway to closure? If they have good leadership, they need time and support. The insulting term 'coasting' also tells you everything about how carefully Ofsted have chosen their terminology. Schools serving the most deprived communities could never be described as coasting. This makes the whole thing look silly. 

There are many other short and long-term issues that could be easily reworked. I don't see the benefit of anything that is done for the sake of 'evidence', such as school websites (inspection portals?). Excessive workload is not doing any good for children or teachers. The changes that Spielman has shared are intended to make the process less damaging. They are right, but they aren’t enough. If there’s isn’t any change then we have a time bomb situation. The media and public now have an interest. They are saddened by the things that have happened and they now question the process, because people are intrinsically fair. Is it now just a matter of time before we hear more bad news, because it’s newsworthy, and because Ofsted appear too proud to shift from their ‘high stakes’ preferences? 

I didn't want to just write about getting rid of Ofsted, I'm not into complaining, I want to be constructive, but I am cynical. I know a lot of very good inspectors and have also met many in post. I think that they have a lot to offer and can really help school leaders, working with schools to collaborate, advise, drive and improve. And yes, if a school is failing, and does not have the capacity to improve, trigger the intervention. We’re all grown-ups. But let's not do this if it's about one document, a difference of opinion or anything slightly less than 'good'. 

Amanda Spielman has acknowledged a ‘culture of fear’. One of the first things I learned as a headteacher was that holding your hand up and admitting that things aren't quite right, is a crucial part of the job.

Humility is effective because it demonstrates the understanding that improvements can be made together, acknowledging that you don't always have to be seen to be the one holding all of the cards.