Head teacher kills herself over OFSTED

I know what you mean Glorianny it was designed to give parents a clear idea about choosing a school, as well as obvs weeding out really poor practices, but maybe it does need to be more nuanced than that.
Schools still need inspecting of course, and certain schools will always be downgraded.

Joseanne

^I have endured 5 Ofsted inspections across my 30 year teaching career. Not one of them was undertaken with adequate professionalism, expertise or regard for staff well-being.^

As an example, either this teacher on here was very unlucky or maybe they misread things. My DH inspects around 30 schools a year, they are variable in their management and outcomes, but every team I know enters each setting with professionalism, expertise and regard for staff well-being.

I'll say it again. Private school inspections are different from Ofsted ones. I've experienced both, so I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance. Unless I'm very mistaken, your DH is not an Ofsted inspector.

No one has accused you of ignorance growstuff, but I do read irritation.
I'll ask you again, in what way are the inspections different, eg. number of inspectors, duration of the inspection, areas covered, reporting? Are you saying they are easier in the independent sector? I really don’t think so, especially when you factor in that an iffy Ofsted can ruin a school - parents being paying customers who can speak with their feet. Or are you saying the inspectors themselves are different and that the unprofessional ogres are saved up for the state sector?
The two might be different in the provision of the type of education they inspect, but safeguarding issues which we are primarily discussing on this thread are identical. There is no room for a Head getting safeguarding wrong wherever.

* iffy inspection

In my experience, the private school inspection was a more positive experience because it was more constructive. I did not have the impression that the inspectors had preconceived ideas and a tick-box mentality. There was not the them/us atmosphere I experienced in state school inspections. Incidentally, until a few years ago, many Ofsted inspectors didn't have recent classroom experience and even now, there's a clique of people who do inspections, while leaving the running of their own schools to deputies.

The private school where I worked would actually have failed on safe-guarding because it had missed out something minor with pre-employment checks, but it was given a "heads up" by the inspectors and the oversight was rectified very quickly. To me, that seems like common sense. The pupils themselves were never in any danger.

I don't know why this poor headteacher's school received the grade it did, so I can't really comment. However, from what I've read, the school was "good" in all areas except one, so received the lowest grade. That single grade sticks with the school and most parents don't understand it. Nevertheless, the stigma sticks to the school and any conscientious head is bound to take it personally. Ironically, I would say that the more caring heads (and teachers) are likely to be affected more.

PS. I'm sure you know this, but state school inspectors have an agenda regarding classroom methodology, which comes from the DfE. Private schools aren't judged in the same way.

Oreo

I know what you mean Glorianny it was designed to give parents a clear idea about choosing a school, as well as obvs weeding out really poor practices, but maybe it does need to be more nuanced than that.
Schools still need inspecting of course, and certain schools will always be downgraded.

Ofsted was actually supposed to be about improving performance. Its own record suggest that it has been a very expensive way of producing very little.

I remember the pre-Ofsted days, when local authority inspectors came into a school and offered constructive advice as part of the process. These days, Ofsted is not even supposed to give advice.

Yes, that is a fair appraisal growstuff and those who pooh pooh what goes on in the private sector might do well to acknowledge more of its successful practices - but that is for a different discussion.
The words that keep cropping up here are: support and advice, I agree that that is what is needed.

Definitely a more caring sensitive Head will be mortified to let a school down. You would go through the list - children, parents, colleagues - and must wish the ground would swallow you up.

But M0nica has a point
If you take the senior management role in any organisation, then the buck stops with you, and considering how you would cope in a situation where you were found wanting, should be something you think through before you accept a senior management role.

What I don't understand is that funding is per pupil. Schools that do not attract parents will have less pupils and less funding. This means that schools are fighting a losing battle to have enough funding to employ enough staff to tick all the boxes

It is not logical

I think the open door policies schools have for parents have put more pressure on teachers and heads though, especially in middle class areas where parents have more time to complain. I remember waitinf weeks to speak to the teacher at drop off in a morning but there would be a queue of parents every single mornings with matters that needed discussing. Whe I finally caught her without a queue she almost cried and said, why have you waited weeks when you actually have something important to talk to me about?

I think it is good schools are open but I think 'some parents' like some posters wink wink forget this is also someone's workplace and I guess most people don't have loads of people who don;t work there queing up to complain or worry for an hour before they even start their actual job, which teaching and head teacher role isn;t just a job for a lot of people.

Also what is the point of not giving advice? It is hardly a progressive service

growstuff

In my experience, the private school inspection was a more positive experience because it was more constructive. I did not have the impression that the inspectors had preconceived ideas and a tick-box mentality. There was not the them/us atmosphere I experienced in state school inspections. Incidentally, until a few years ago, many Ofsted inspectors didn't have recent classroom experience and even now, there's a clique of people who do inspections, while leaving the running of their own schools to deputies.

The private school where I worked would actually have failed on safe-guarding because it had missed out something minor with pre-employment checks, but it was given a "heads up" by the inspectors and the oversight was rectified very quickly. To me, that seems like common sense. The pupils themselves were never in any danger.

I don't know why this poor headteacher's school received the grade it did, so I can't really comment. However, from what I've read, the school was "good" in all areas except one, so received the lowest grade. That single grade sticks with the school and most parents don't understand it. Nevertheless, the stigma sticks to the school and any conscientious head is bound to take it personally. Ironically, I would say that the more caring heads (and teachers) are likely to be affected more.

thank you for this post growstuff, I meant to acknowledge you/it in my barely coherent or readable post above

Joseanne

No one has accused you of ignorance growstuff, but I do read irritation.
I'll ask you again, in what way are the inspections different, eg. number of inspectors, duration of the inspection, areas covered, reporting? Are you saying they are easier in the independent sector? I really don’t think so, especially when you factor in that an iffy Ofsted can ruin a school - parents being paying customers who can speak with their feet. Or are you saying the inspectors themselves are different and that the unprofessional ogres are saved up for the state sector?
The two might be different in the provision of the type of education they inspect, but safeguarding issues which we are primarily discussing on this thread are identical. There is no room for a Head getting safeguarding wrong wherever.

Let me say firstly, I don't know the difference between a private school inspection and an Ofsted inspection.

However, the head of the last UK private school I worked in is now head at a prestigious UK state school in London (not an oxymoron!). His state school has recently been Ofsteded. He was horrified at the difference between Ofsted and the private school inspections he'd been through.

Pre Ofsted inspections we had HMI inspections. There was also an inspector attached to the school who visited regularly. Their role was supportive and non aggressive. A relationship was formed in order that a true and realistic impression of a school was gained. Then came the box ticking brigade who instilled fear in staff who were working full out and in some cases were more experienced than the tickers. This was especially evident in the inspection of primary schools. The system needs a complete overhaul.

Lovetopaint037

Pre Ofsted inspections we had HMI inspections. There was also an inspector attached to the school who visited regularly. Their role was supportive and non aggressive. A relationship was formed in order that a true and realistic impression of a school was gained. Then came the box ticking brigade who instilled fear in staff who were working full out and in some cases were more experienced than the tickers. This was especially evident in the inspection of primary schools. The system needs a complete overhaul.

Their role was supportive and non aggressive
That does seem as if it was a far better system.

Pointing out failings and giving the Head a chance to correct these before a re-assessment in a specified time would be a far better system.
Better for the staff, governors and better for the Head Teacher.

Such a punitive system, instilling fear, cannot be good for the staff or for the children.

The pupils must all be very shocked by this tragedy.
The sad thing is that it's not an isolated case.

88%of schools are rated good or outstanding. So to say that the OFSTED inspectors are doing a terrible job is simply untrue.

That doesn’t really stack up. A system that is unreliable will produce unreliable outcomes across the board - both negative and positive. Many of that 88% perhaps aren’t good or outstanding. Just because a regulatory body demonstrates largely positive outcomes for its own work does not necessarily mean that the body is successful.

I was thinking about growstuff's comparison and others' comments on inspections in former times ..... maybe what is lost in current state school inspections is inspectors having an understanding of the ethos of the different schools they are visiting? Maybe they are too busy box ticking to involve themselves in recording how the setting actually makes things work successfully for itself. Perhaps it should be the other way round, and the inspectors should be appreciating what actually makes the school itself "tick".
Back in the day our school often had 2 inspections, Ofsted and ISI, very close together, (due to the separate nursery voucher scheme), and you would think the two reports were about completely different settings and staff! Both gave an "excellent" rating, but you can guess which one still looked to find fault and offered no advice.
Whilst I agree that the one inspection was possibly the more pleasant, I must emphasise that it was neither less stressful nor less thorough than the other.

Not really surprised. My neighbour is a teacher and recently her school had an Ofsted inspection.

She was really cross because the inspector, could be the same one as I live near Reading, was brutal in questioning her TA and had her in tears. I asked if the head intended to report it and that is planned, but not until the report comes out as it might affect the rating. Apparently, there was little, if any improvement advice given.

I know this is a tangent so switch off now if you don't want to be distracted but as home-educators we were also inspected -by our LEA. One of my daughters education provision is currently "inspected" as she is home-educating.

This comment - made by Joseanne rang true:
Maybe they are too busy box ticking to involve themselves in recording how the setting actually makes things work successfully for itself.

When we had inspections all those years ago we had a visit from the same person each year. The children actually looked forward to seeing him and he learned a lot about how we functioned and how we met the needs of our children - and he gave not only positive feedback but suggestions. It was still a (small) worry that me might be found wanting somewhere but his reports were always fair and balanced.

My daughter has a decidedly tick-box exercise and she spends about a week "gathering evidence " of the various boxes that need ticking. She never has contact with the same person and now, after many years of home education they are moving over to a submission (written by her) with photographs and samples of work which they will be evaluating remotely against the criteria. They do say they may visit in future but there is no nuance, no discussion and no suggestions. It's up to her what to present as "evidence" so she spends a lot of time through the year recording what she's doing in a way that was totally unnecessary years ago.

Our old-style inspection meant that we felt listened to, our philosophy understood and any criticism was easily and honestly discussed (and remedied if need be).

If they present as "the enemy" and a tick-box exercise then the inspection will be "thinner" - they will undoubtedly learn less and help less.
I see the changes home education has seen over the last 40 years as similar to those discussed here regarding Ofsted and the change from HMI.

The difference, of course between Ofsted and my daughter's "inspection" is that Ofsted has a one-word label as to how good or poor a school is which may have very serious implications.

LizzieDrip

^88%of schools are rated good or outstanding. So to say that the OFSTED inspectors are doing a terrible job is simply untrue.^

That doesn’t really stack up. A system that is unreliable will produce unreliable outcomes across the board - both negative and positive. Many of that 88% perhaps aren’t good or outstanding. Just because a regulatory body demonstrates largely positive outcomes for its own work does not necessarily mean that the body is successful.

Soooo, you’re saying that all OFSTED inspectors can’t do their job? Ridiculous.
There’s also tons of rose coloured specs on noses about the far away and long ago school inspectors on this thread.

M0nica said
If you take the senior management role in any organisation, then the buck stops with you, and considering how you would cope in a situation where you were found wanting, should be something you think through before you accept a senior management role.
Taking that statement on board, we are interviewing for a new senior management role in a few weeks time. An additional question should now perhaps be, “If a situation arose where you were found wanting, would you be likely to commit suicide?”
In the interests of the school, the pupils, parents, and the OFSTED team, this would be important to know.

Whilst I don’t approve of the publicity over the lead inspector’s name and background, he and his family will probably feel as under attack as the head.

That above anything else might convince OFSTED that there is a need for change from public castigation, to valuable support and reform. (Which, incidentally, should have been done by the School Advisor or School Improvement Partner).
I don’t understand the ‘rose coloured glasses’ comment about HMIs. They did raise issues, but also dealt with them through support and advice (sometimes unwelcome).
Perhaps whoever posted that would like to elaborate on their own experience.

I think part of the problem is the Head's sister is running a protest campaign referring to Ofsted as "horrible and inaccurate", and the cause of her sister's death. I can understand this lady being distressed, but what she is saying isn’t helpful.
I believe it was also she who told the newspaper the bit about the flossing dance causing the Head such upset that she committed suicide, though the dancing is not mentioned as the main concern in the report.

Mollygo Obviously not a question you ask at interview, but if you apply for a pinnacle job, you must consider whether you can cope with the stress.

Labour Education Minister, Estelle Morris resigned from her post because she said she did not have what was necessary to do her job. In the past people in every kind of job just resigned if they were found wanting, Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary because his department failed to realise that the Argentinians were serious about invading the Falklands.

It is only in recent years that resignation has been considered something no one should ever do.

But M0nica, no one who applies for a job thinks they will fail, any more that those who marry think they will divorce. If you want a person taking up any sort of post, wife, husband, head etc. to think about how they’ll cope if something goes wrong, you’d need to ask them to think about it in those terms.
Also to consider the fact that the public, even on GN feel they have the right to criticise those who back out of a job.
Think of the criticism of Jacinda Ardernor Nicola Sturgeon and the postulations about their reasons for leaving. Perhaps that’s another question-Will you be able to face the criticism and speculation if you quit your job?

The model of OfSted has nothing whatever to do with the primary aim of any government department, which is to serve.

OfSted does nothing to raise standards, to improve the school experience for pupils and staff, nor do the department's interventions and micromanagement of education, which basically OfSted is there to police.

Teachers get worn down by government demands which they, as professionals, know are hindering children's progress and burdening teachers with unnecessary work, taking them away from their primary role where they hope to be able to exercise their professional skills in the interests of the children.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that there is a wider picture here, of which OfSted is just one part.

Teachers need to be free to teach.