Head teacher kills herself over OFSTED

I have many years experience of Ofsted inspection (registered childrens homes) and the inspecting bodies which came before it.
It was always stressful but as I say social care tends to have layers of accountability which gave some 'protection', although my name was 'above the door' so to speak. If might be beneficial to look also at the organisational structure of schools. I spent a very long time as a governor and I am afraid I dont think that system of oversight is particularly effective.

GagaJo

growstuff

No Oreo I'm not setting myself up as an authority. However, as a former teacher, I have experience of how Ofsted works and the effect it has on individuals. Do you have that experience?

I have also repeatedly stated that I don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding the lady's death or the reason the school was given inadequate.

What I do know is that Ofsted is not fit for purpose, if its purpose is to drive school improvement.

Another ex teacher here. I agree with growstuff.

So do I.

I think it's fair enough that they are now going to have a debate about the overall labelling system in schools.
Interestingly, in a piece on BBC news tonight, the first thing the parent interviewed said they look for in a school was safety for the children.

My last words on this because I won't be at home for a couple of days.

Ruth Perry was by all accounts a dedicated professional, who would have taken personally the labelling of her management as inadequate.She wasn't allowed to speak to anybody for nearly two months about the outcome of the inspection.

In 2019, she volunteered her school for a pilot inspection, which Amanda Spielman attended, and was given a glowing report. There was no indication of safeguarding concerns.

The school was inspected in November 2022. Regulations regarding safeguarding and the Ofsted framework changed in September 2022, so it would appear that recording of safeguarding issues was two months out of date.

The same inspector gave another school an almost identical report just a couple of weeks previously. It looks suspiciously like Ofsted was looking to catch people out.

The report itself states that children knew how to keep themselves safe and staff knew how to report safeguarding issues. The issue was that they weren't using the centralised IT system to record everything, including follow up actions. It would appear some staff hadn't had the necessary training to use the system.

By the way, safeguarding issues might include children who seemed neglected or if they had been involved in fights. There was no indication that there had been any sexual abuse involving staff or other pupils.

During the inspection, there had been torrential rain and children weren't allowed to go out at playtimes. They were all cooped up inside and I'm sure any teacher knows that wet breaks often give rise to tensions. Apparently a fight broke out and it was some minutes before a member of staff could deal with it. The report states that there was inadequate supervision.

There have also been some rumours about children performing the "floss dance", which I find baffling, but the inspectors deemed that this showed sexualised behaviour.

I am not disputing that the safety of children shouldn't be paramount (actually most parents I know ask themselves whether their child will be happy), but there is very little indication that children at this school wouldn't have been safe. The main issue seems to have been that staff weren't consistently using a newly introduced online system to record all their actions and the head was held responsible for it. That really isn't the same as being negligent of safeguarding rules/guidelines.

Galaxy

I have many years experience of Ofsted inspection (registered childrens homes) and the inspecting bodies which came before it.
It was always stressful but as I say social care tends to have layers of accountability which gave some 'protection', although my name was 'above the door' so to speak. If might be beneficial to look also at the organisational structure of schools. I spent a very long time as a governor and I am afraid I dont think that system of oversight is particularly effective.

Were you the governor of a number of schools? Or did you just have experience of one?

growstuff that sounds like a fair summation based on what I am hearing in education circles

Joseanne

When you say "checks", growstuff are you also talking about a Head picking up the phone and actually talking to a previous employer? I have never employed anyone in school without a phone conversation with one of the referees conversation, you learn so much more that way from someone who knows the candidate personally. That was in the 90s and and early 2000.

Yes, I know schools do that. I have no idea what the oversight was in this case.

What I do know is what staff and parents have been saying from their personal experience of the school and the inspection itself.

The framework changed two months before the inspection and staff were required to use a new system. The main issue was safeguarding of children who gave rise to concern (monitoring of absence, the fight and the floss dance) and the staff who weren't recording everything in line with the system.

VioletSky

growstuff that sounds like a fair summation based on what I am hearing in education circles

Thanks.

Fights in school can be difficult, even primary age children can be bigger and stronger than some staff

It looks suspiciously like Ofsted was looking to catch people out.

That's exactly the experience we have locally in childminding.

Opening comment as the inspector walked in my friend's door:

"Don't expect to keep your Outstanding grade as we've raised the bar since your last inspection."

Joseanne

^So what happened in the intervening 3/4 years?^
A lot can happen in 3 or 4 months if a Head takes her eye off the ball. In the Caversham case I believe the error was due to the Head not having checked demesne who worked abroad.

Since 2019, there's been a pandemic. Heads were tearing their hair out trying to ensure that children were kept occupied at home as well as those whose parents were keyworkers. Promised laptops and air conditioning systems didn't materialise. The had to employ extra cleaning staff and had to deal with sick staff and even some who died. Sometimes they didn't even know from one day to the next whether their school would be in lockdown the next day.

They had to deal with moaning parents, negative media and an aggressive Secretary of State. Most did the best they could without additional support.

They then had to deal with children coming back to school full-time, but being unsettled and not being used to routines and codes of conduct.

If ever there's a place where children are likely to be unsafe it's in the home, which is where most spent months.

I suspect Ruth Perry has had other priorities over the last couple of years other than ensuring her staff all use a new IT system.

PS. Really must go now.

Safeguarding is the highest priority.

V3ra

^It looks suspiciously like Ofsted was looking to catch people out.^

That's exactly the experience we have locally in childminding.

Opening comment as the inspector walked in my friend's door:

"Don't expect to keep your Outstanding grade as we've raised the bar since your last inspection."

With schools it was frequently related to the Academisation process. Schools with a bad Ofsted report were forced to become academies. Happened to a school I worked at. Chugging along nicely at Good. Doing well. Ofsted. Bam. Inadequate. Turned into an academy. Speedily back to Good.

The downside was that all the good staff, fed up with the bullying of the MAT (multi-academy trust) in order to push out higher earning teachers, ended up losing so many experienced staff it was returned to Inadequate due to dropping results.

Oreo

Safeguarding is the highest priority.

Of course but safeguarding seems to have become something if an umbrella term. As a result there’s a risk its meaning has been diluted. My example is a school that’s bern outstanding for 20 years. Despite a good local rep, many more applications than places, excellent exam results etc - it needs improvement because a child was referred to by a pronoun the child rejected. I’m not seeking to minimise the importance of support for pupils struggling with gender / identity issues but this shouldn’t be the result of a genuine error.

GagaJo

V3ra

It looks suspiciously like Ofsted was looking to catch people out.

That's exactly the experience we have locally in childminding.

Opening comment as the inspector walked in my friend's door:

"Don't expect to keep your Outstanding grade as we've raised the bar since your last inspection."

With schools it was frequently related to the Academisation process. Schools with a bad Ofsted report were forced to become academies. Happened to a school I worked at. Chugging along nicely at Good. Doing well. Ofsted. Bam. Inadequate. Turned into an academy. Speedily back to Good.

The downside was that all the good staff, fed up with the bullying of the MAT (multi-academy trust) in order to push out higher earning teachers, ended up losing so many experienced staff it was returned to Inadequate due to dropping results.

The irony is that the original aim of academies was to raise standards for schools that were in difficulty. It has all gone tits up for the reasons quoted above. And also new MATs are cherry picking good schools to join rather than seeking to support failing schools as was their original raison d'etre.

There is more than a hint of political window-dressing in the whole academy concept. "Something needs to be done" - look at us, we are doing something!

Many MATs, unlike the local authority, do not know the area - which can be said of some of their heads, brought in from their other schools, hundreds of miles away.
The quality of advisory support is often inferior to local advisors. (I'm always suspicious of advisors who are related to colleagues!)

This is not going to encourage young people to think of entering the teaching profession.