OFSTED is not ‘Fit for purpose’ yet world class education goal?

It’s the pressure of public announcements!
I remember frequent tests at primary school, tables, grammar, composition, mental arithmetic and what was called ‘mechanical arithmetic’, but the results weren’t published in the press and used as a tool to rubbish schools and presumably as a rod to beat staff, though as a pupil, I don't know that.
There has to be some sort of check. Otherwise you are in my DD’s situation when she changed primary school.
In Liverpool she learnt x tables and practised assiduously. When we moved she was told not to worry about them as her new school didn’t do them!
But OFSTED must be capable of not just criticising, but explaining in detail what improvements they think should be made and how they should be achieved.
Most of them feel that is not part of their job, so a simple children’s attendance is not good enough or a you need more English activities with no help is what they dish out.
That sort of help was given by HMIs.

What would be the best method to ensure that schools are performing well? Pupils are tested regularly to ensure they understand the subject, performance management in the workplace is useful if there are problems to discuss, but SATs seem to cause such angst in education, and OFSTED so much pressure and anxiety. There has to be a better way.

While I think the principle of OFSTED is good , I think they need to overhaul their working practices. When restaurants are inspected if they fail they are giving a time scale for the improvements to carried out then they can be re-assessed. Why can't school inspections be like this? Most of the failures are down to incorrect paperwork , unless it needs to go into special measures then that is a completely different thing.

Teams of LA Inspectors and advisers did overlap with Ofsted for about fifteen years. Ofsted started in 1993, LA posts increased hugely with the 1997 Labour government and then the finances were cut by the coalition in 2010 and subsequent Conservative governments. Most LA inspectors did several Ofsted inspections a year to keep on top of the framework in order to support their schools.

Luckygirl3

Glorianny

I was thinking that if there are weaknesses in a school and inspectors recognise them then surely they should also know what needs to be done. So why not have a body that not only inspects but when there are problems, sets to and helps solve them. So for a failing school a detailed plan is drawn up and inspectors remain for a set period to help the staff and head to put the plan into action.
If this showed little improvement in the targeted schools then inspectors are shown to be a useless intervention, and the money being poured into them could go to schools instead.

Ah well - we did have something along these lines for decades and it was working fine but it was swept away by government edict and OfSted put in its place. Local schools inspectors used to do all that you have suggested.

A dedicated young woman has lost her life in all this mess - it is utterly appalling.

Yes, I thought it worked like that Luckygirl and that is how it should be.

It seems like just punishing the Head and staff at a school then publishing the views without any relevant background is very wrong indeed.

Most schools here were put into special measures a few years ago by Estyn.
Apparently, one of the reasons was the inadequate teaching of Welsh but at the time there were few Welsh language teachers available so it was inevitable.

The whole system needs to change from a punitive to a supportive one.

All staff in school have to have safeguarding training - and rightly so - but it is an online course that you can do in under an hour, and it is very easy to fudge the results - you just go back and forth changing your responses. But - if all staff have done it, no matter if they have skim-read it - the box is ticked for OfSted.

Joseann, I would agree in principle, that safeguarding is paramount in a school (and any other institution dealing with young and vulnerable people).
However, there is a strong sense that OFSTED does not really understand safeguarding as it works in a school, dealing with difficult situations. They have their 'tick boxes' and no idea of how people in real situations have to work. I, and many on here could fill the forum with real life examples.

OFSTED could say that training is needed in safeguarding issues, without downgrading the school. They could also seek out real and not paper examples, and check, for instance, how quickly a referral to Social Services is dealt with. I salute all of those front-line workers who help and support families.

Glorianny

I was thinking that if there are weaknesses in a school and inspectors recognise them then surely they should also know what needs to be done. So why not have a body that not only inspects but when there are problems, sets to and helps solve them. So for a failing school a detailed plan is drawn up and inspectors remain for a set period to help the staff and head to put the plan into action.
If this showed little improvement in the targeted schools then inspectors are shown to be a useless intervention, and the money being poured into them could go to schools instead.

Ah well - we did have something along these lines for decades and it was working fine but it was swept away by government edict and OfSted put in its place. Local schools inspectors used to do all that you have suggested.

A dedicated young woman has lost her life in all this mess - it is utterly appalling.

growstuff

Glorianny

I was thinking that if there are weaknesses in a school and inspectors recognise them then surely they should also know what needs to be done. So why not have a body that not only inspects but when there are problems, sets to and helps solve them. So for a failing school a detailed plan is drawn up and inspectors remain for a set period to help the staff and head to put the plan into action.
If this showed little improvement in the targeted schools then inspectors are shown to be a useless intervention, and the money being poured into them could go to schools instead.

The trouble is that they don't always know what needs to be done.

For example, they look at the exam results, crunch them all up, compare them with other schools, look at pupils' prior attainment etc and if the computer decides that pupils aren't achieving highly enough, the school will be give a poor rating.

Ofsted inspectors then say it's not their role to improve results. According to them, that's up to the school management.

I know! That's why I suggested they should do it and their success rate be examined. Then it would prove they are the waste of money most teachers know they are.
If you took your car to a mechanic and he told you it was making a funny noise but it wasn't something he could help with you'd get another mechanic.

I think part of the problem is that LAs have been starved of funds in recent years and the LA inspectors and advisers who worked in local school improvement have shrunk to a very small number. LA inspectors prepared schools for Ofsted and worked with teachers and senior leaders before, during and after inspection. Ofsted were not there to support the school directly, they were there to evaluate the impact of what the school did on the progress of the pupils; in teaching and learning, safety and wellbeing etc.
An important part of the overall process of school improvement is now missing.

The take about the tannoy announcement has made me laugh Marydoll.

Callistemon21

^I also know another who went into it because she wanted quote "To put in their place all the people who had annoyed or disagreed with her during her teaching career"^

Yes, I've been told of one like that too, causing much distress to ex-colleagues with pettiness.

There are plenty of them out there Callistemon. The one I mentioned was quite proud of what she said, it did make you wonder what she had been like all her teaching life.

This was probably before your DD's time.

As I wrote before, my DD used to work for Ofsted as an HR officer. A few years ago, the DfE decided to get rid of the outsourcing and brought all inspection back in-house, which was probably one of the best things it ever did.

Applications to be an inspector are now more closely scrutinised. All the former inspectors had to apply for the new service and many were rejected - and made a huge fuss about it. Applicants have to show a record of proven improvement - not just staying in a job for a couple of years and fiddling the stats.

It was my DD's job to do the first scrutiny of applications. She had to do all the obvious things like checking dates and qualifications - it's apparently amazing how many lie about them. She then checked things like social media accounts and any contributions made to conferences or articles written for publications - did they stack up with any other evidence? HR officers have to be careful whom they contact, but it's possible to do things like looking in local newspapers, if a person claims to be good at community engagement.

It's got a bit spooky now because the DfE have no-platformed a couple of educationalists whose views don't agree with the government.

This was probably about 12 to 15 years ago*growstuff*.

I knew the Inspector too, as she had taught DD and seemed a perfectly pleasant woman but did upset a lot of ex-colleagues with her attitude.
Perhaps the power went to her head.

Callistemon21

^I also know another who went into it because she wanted quote "To put in their place all the people who had annoyed or disagreed with her during her teaching career"^

Yes, I've been told of one like that too, causing much distress to ex-colleagues with pettiness.

Were they appointed over the last years?

These days, Ofsted inspectors have to show a proven record of improvement. Ofsted is quite sneaky about how it checks out applicants' claims.

Glorianny

I was thinking that if there are weaknesses in a school and inspectors recognise them then surely they should also know what needs to be done. So why not have a body that not only inspects but when there are problems, sets to and helps solve them. So for a failing school a detailed plan is drawn up and inspectors remain for a set period to help the staff and head to put the plan into action.
If this showed little improvement in the targeted schools then inspectors are shown to be a useless intervention, and the money being poured into them could go to schools instead.

The trouble is that they don't always know what needs to be done.

For example, they look at the exam results, crunch them all up, compare them with other schools, look at pupils' prior attainment etc and if the computer decides that pupils aren't achieving highly enough, the school will be give a poor rating.

Ofsted inspectors then say it's not their role to improve results. According to them, that's up to the school management.

I also know another who went into it because she wanted quote "To put in their place all the people who had annoyed or disagreed with her during her teaching career"

Yes, I've been told of one like that too, causing much distress to ex-colleagues with pettiness.

They turn to expensive advisory services.

Or if it's still a council-run school, it gets forced to become an academy, who employ a team of well-paid managers, who impose new rules and learning programmes, etc .

I was thinking that if there are weaknesses in a school and inspectors recognise them then surely they should also know what needs to be done. So why not have a body that not only inspects but when there are problems, sets to and helps solve them. So for a failing school a detailed plan is drawn up and inspectors remain for a set period to help the staff and head to put the plan into action.
If this showed little improvement in the targeted schools then inspectors are shown to be a useless intervention, and the money being poured into them could go to schools instead.

growstuff

Bella23

It has been said Ofsted is in place to inspect. If they find something wrong they should point out measures that could be put in place to rectify. They don't because they haven't got the knowledge to do so.
When I was young the saying went "If you can teach you teach. If you can't you become a manager [head], if you can't manage you become an Inspector". I think it still rings true today.
To leave a daming report with the poor head all over the Christmas holidays knowing she could not tell her staff or start to put what they said was wrong right beggars belief.

OFSTED inspectors are told it's not their roles to suggest improvements. What they do is make judgments according to their tick boxes and leave others to sort it out.

Who's going to sort it out then if the Head and staff have got it wrong when inspected? Where do they turn to?
I personally know an Ofsted Inspector that never empathised with anyone in their private life and both partners have gone into Inspection because they did not want the hard work that they felt a Headship would bring.
I also know another who went into it because she wanted quote "To put in their place all the people who had annoyed or disagreed with her during her teaching career", her words which were heard when she was accused of crossing the line.
There has to be help like in the old days of Inspectors and advisors.

I think no-one should be a school inspector without having taught in a state school and have held a head teacher's post for at least 5 years. A key role of former HMIs pre-Ofsted was to advise and one can't do that unless one has a store of professional experience and knowledge. Present inspections appear to be box ticking exercises and lack public accountability for their accuracy.

Joseann, you shouldn't have needed to post that clarification.

This is why I am now so wary of posting anything other than the inoccuous. I can empathise with you, it has happened to me.

Before this thread winds down, I would just like to clarify that the accusation:
Incidentally, when this particular case was discussed before, you said that it was right that the school was given an "inadequate" grading' is completely false.
I have re read the previous thread (which shouldn't have been referred to anyway, TAAT), and nowhere did I say that it was right that the school in question was given an overall "inadequate" grading. Here is the comment I made 9 months ago,
What I would argue is that the safeguarding wasinadequate, and that this is of paramount importance, even above the education. I even said that the Ofsted system was too punitive in this instance.
I hope that clears up any twisting of my words, not that it is at all relevant to this discussion. GNHQ is aware of the interference on this thread, the mistakes won't be deleted because it is felt I have cleared myself adequately.

Oh eazybee why am I not surprised to read this? Everyone knows how to teach/ run a school don't they?