Ofsted has been accused of “mission creep” after it emerged new inspections will mark down teacher training providers that allow the use of “discredited” research – with the watchdog refusing to say what studies would fall into this category.
Initial teacher education (ITE) providers will be judged across five evaluation areas using a five-grade system once Ofsted inspections resume in January under its new framework.
Ofsted’s toolkit says they will be graded “urgent improvement” – the lowest grade – under the “curriculum, teaching and training” evaluation area if a “lack of critical engagement with high-quality, relevant research means trainees’ use of discredited research is not tackled effectively”.
But providers wonder how Ofsted will decide what is “discredited” or “high-quality”.
“It is not Ofsted’s role, or within its area of expertise, to decide what research findings are legitimate or discredited”, said James Noble-Rogers, the executive director of the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET).
“Ofsted should only be looking at whether providers are meeting the requirements, and not making subjective judgments about the quality or robustness of particular pieces of research.”
‘Mission creep’
David Spendlove, a professor of education at the University of Manchester, said the new Ofsted framework “further strips providers of agency”.
Inspectors passing judgment on research was “mission creep” into territory where they “don’t…have sufficient expertise”.
“This very much points to the previous government’s culture wars, which hopefully we have moved on from.”
Under the last government, the Department for Education implemented the controversial 2021 ITT market review, requiring ITE providers to re-apply for accreditation.
It was criticised as being driven by a desire for increased control of course content. The government adviser who led on the changes, Rory Gribbell, is now Ofsted’s director of strategy.
Spendlove also pointed out Ofsted’s own use of research “has been challenged on numerous occasions”.
He cited Ofsted’s 2021 mathematics review which faced calls for withdrawal after academics said it widely misused research it referenced.
Dr Christian Bokhove, professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton, also doubts “whether Ofsted would safeguard well enough” what is discredited or high-quality.
“Maybe they have a whole department of experienced researchers, but if not, I think there is a risk that certain research is prioritised.”
Calls for clarity
Meanwhile, Dr Jasper Green, head of ITE at the UCL Institute of Education, argued critical engagement with “diverse” research was key to allowing beginner teachers to cultivate “professional judgment”.
“I hope that rather than compiling lists of ‘red flags’, this framework is about evaluating how well a programme educates teachers about the qualities of research that may make one piece of scholarship better for a particular purpose than another.”
Annie Gouldsworthy, director of ITT at King Edward’s Consortium, urged Ofsted to provide “objective definition and clarity” on what it deemed discredited.
“You would struggle to find a single teacher educator who would not applaud an informed, rational approach to the use of evidence-based practice,” she said.
“What no provider wants to see are arbitrary or subjective judgments influencing an inspection process.”
But Ofsted would not provide Schools Week any examples of ‘discredited’ research.
“At Ofsted, we do not define what discredited research is or could include,” said a spokesperson. “The ITTECF is one of the pieces of statutory guidance that underpins the ITE toolkit. This outlines how trainees should learn that ‘research evidence can vary in its level of reliability, which is determined by how the research was conducted and other factors that might introduce bias, such as the level of independence’.
“Therefore, inspectors will talk to leaders and teacher educators about their research base that underpins their ITE curriculum and the ways in which trainees learn to critique this.”
Ofsted said it expects inspectors “to consider the extent to which an ITE curriculum is informed by high-quality, relevant research.
“This may include a range of academic and subject specific research, which provides trainees with the knowledge and understanding of effective teaching, including current educational thinking.”
Your thoughts