The loss of Ruth Perry has quite rightly put the whole school inspection regime under intense public scrutiny. If the death of a dedicated professional has been contributed to, to whatever extent, by the pressure of an impending Ofsted verdict, then we should all stop and think about the impact the current system is having. Of course we should.
But if we’re going to have that difficult conversation, then we should also be willing to be honest about the way some schools try to outwit the inspectors and artificially enhance their performance.
The truth is that something has gone badly wrong when some parts of the system are deploying increasingly sophisticated methods of digital data analysis to anticipate when the inspection team is going to come knocking.
Some will argue that it’s just a smart move in the face of a high-stakes culture that has unhealthily taken root across our sector. In truth, it is a deeply questionable (even unethical) practice that does a disservice to all the leaders and teachers out there working to secure genuine, long-term and sustainable school improvement.
Hand on heart, as a school leader would you be comfortable with some pupils knowing in advance when a spot test was going to happen while others did not? If we wouldn’t tolerate it in our classrooms, why should we accept it from our peers?
In reality, a week’s notice for a school that isn’t there yet is not enough time to deliver real change. Early warnings therefore only really benefit those who want to take short cuts and game the system through sharp practice like sending disruptive pupils or weaker staff off-site for the day or assembling a team of leaders to swarm the school and create the impression of a more improved school than the reality bears out.
We all know it happens, and we all know where it happens.
It’s pretty grubby and reflects badly on the sector
And all it does is undermine the notion of fair inspection. It’s pretty grubby and reflects badly on the whole sector. It also risks chipping away at parental confidence in a school’s positive judgement and encouraging a ‘they’re all at it’ cynical view among the public, undermining all those who are putting in the hard yards.
Having a two-tier system where the technological ‘haves’ gain some sort of advantage over the ‘have nots’ is clearly damaging for everybody’s reputations, and it’s hardly in the spirit of ethical school leadership.
And where does it end? Security consultants going through HMIs’ rubbish bins or staking out home working to try and predict the next inspection?
Fundamentally, leaders should be confident that, should their school be inspected, they are well prepared and able to use the inspection handbook and associated guidance to have a professional conversation about the strengths and areas of improvement of their provision.
Preparing staff and schools for an inspection visit, after all, is only a small part of running a strong school or trust.
Of course, we should ask searching questions about how we got here. Unquestionably, the inspection regime has become incredibly high stakes with too high a price to pay. A verdict of ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires improvement’ is so damning that it is driving behaviours that, if we are honest with ourselves, just aren’t acceptable. So much hinges on a single word judgement and the time is ripe for a serious review of this and how Ofsted discharges its duties.
But we also need to get our own house in order. We need to call out sharp practices that effectively throw others under the bus to gain advantage. Not only that, but they reinforce policy makers’ view that we are only worthy of an accountability system founded on distrust, undermining attempts to secure reform and improvement of the current framework.
Ruth Perry’s legacy should be about more than system reform. We all have a part to play in ensuring our system is fair and sustainable.
Surely the outcome ought to be shared with points broken down and comments made to support rather than condemn? There also needs to be changes in the final outcome to be assessed differently so that there can’t be a one word pass or fail type result, rather there ought to be detail available in order for teachers and leaders to see where Ofsted inspectors are identifying good practice as well as areas for concern/areas needing improvement. You can’t possibly fairly assess an entire school with pupils, parents and teachers being judged as all “failing”. It’s crazy!
One word descriptions can’t possibly sum up a school so are a useless waste of time, especially to parents.
ESTYN in Wales are now miles ahead of the game. They identify what a school is good at and what to improve on in a number of categories. Far more use to the school. They also provide a summary for parents. ESTYN are a part of the school improvement process.
There should always be accountability but the system needs to be as fair as possible. If inspection is not there to raise standards, why waste money on it?
I worked in an outstanding school which was praised by the local authority for maintaining the same standards when we became a stand alone academy. We knew that the government wanted all schools to be part of a trust but were stil shocked when, two months later, we were downgraded to special measures and forced to become part of WCAT ( a failed trust). We appealed, but as there is no independent body to scrutinise Ofsted, the verdict remained and changes to the initial report painted an even more negative picture. One comment was that a sharp implement had been found in the hall- clearly a safeguarding concern. It was a bent paperclip which the teacher had seen prior to her PE lesson and pushed to the wall. I had to leave when WCAT culled many leaders in an attempt to pay its debts and the school has been in two more trusts since.