A monstrous admission
I hope I am not alone in feeling ashamed to read that leaders believe schools will be tempted to exclude pupils who are unlikely to make the grades to support the highest ‘achievement’ judgment of the new inspection framework. (Ofsted’s changes fail to quell school inclusion concerns, 12 September)
We have truly created a monster. Politicians, professionals and indeed journalists should be enraged at the very sentiment, let alone the fact that it has been true for decades.
Predictably, we’re now ganging up on Martyn Oliver for a less-than-perfect framework instead of facing up to the truth that he is introducing it into an education landscape that has seen its value base eroded over many years by political pressure and populist policies.
Campaigners for greater inclusion like Thomas Keaney at TCES (no exclusions in 25 years) are not alone in demanding real change. I have worked with many who demonstrate great integrity but are consistently thwarted by a narrow definition of success.
At least inclusion is now a key part of that definition. We can finally value it, applaud it, and perhaps require a little less ‘courage’ from leaders in delivering it!
Kevin Parker,
Education leadership consultant, Andover
A deafening silence
So Ofsted are not publishing in detail the comments made by respondents to their so-called second “consultation”. (Ofsted keeps report cards support (or lack of) secret, 12 September) What a surprise!
We created the Alternative Big Listen and the Alternative Big Consultation specifically because we were concerned that they would prevaricate and obfuscate. We were right to be worried.
Ofsted’s decision shows a lack of respect to those who responded. Worse, it throws into question its stated ambition to be transparent in its efforts to extract itself from the serious crisis of confidence after the death of Ruth Perry.
It’s hard not to see more of the same organisational arrogance that was evident in the coroner’s report, the subsequent, damning review conducted by Dame Christine Gilbert and a third report conducted by the education select committee.
Unlike Ofsted, we read and published all of the written comments to our two surveys. They provided a very strong indication of the level of disquiet about Ofsted’s approach. They are all available for scrutiny on our website.
The multitude of comments made to Ofsted are not. Why not? Does that question even require answering?
Colin Richards and Frank Norris,
Co-founders, The Alternative Big Listen
A dangerous manifesto
Jeremy Spencer would seem to suggest that each new Ofsted framework should be taken as the new gospel of educational quality (Ofsted’s new toolkits are a gift for self-evaluation, 12 September). He even describes those who look elsewhere for such defining insights as ‘dangerously rebellious’.
I fear I must be counted among that number, but for very good reasons.
As a trust leader, I needed a compelling vision and notions of quality that were more enduring, more evidence-based and more contextually relevant than Ofsted criteria ever were.
There is benefit in cross-referencing third-party checklists for critical self-review. When those lists change (as Ofsted’s often do), the new and old criteria continue to have value in this ‘MOT’ process.
Equally, school leaders owe it to their colleagues and communities to have a good understanding of external accountability frameworks.
But securing a favourable judgment from inspectors cannot ever be a sufficient motivation for a thriving school.
It matters more to consider enduring ethics, to develop effective evidence-informed practice, to be efficient in the use of time and resources, and to ensure schooling is, for all involved, fundamentally enjoyable.
Is that really the manifesto of a dangerous rebel?
Dr Robin Bevan,
Former headteacher, CEO and NEU president
Turning the tables
Some parents might well need support to encourage their children to school
(Top trust boss backs ‘absence awareness courses’ for parents, 8 September), but given the rise of home-schooling, exclusions, suspensions and more, it seems to me schools and trusts should be questioning whether their curriculum, culture and values truly support the communities they provide education for.
Focusing on attendance is convenient for education leaders because parents are easy targets, but the truth is that the education system is broken. What it could really do with are some accountability and inclusion awareness courses for heads and trust CEOs.
Veronica Walker,
Parent, Dorset
To respond to anything you’ve read in Schools Week this week, comment anywhere on our website or email letterstotheeditor@schoolsweek.co.uk
Your thoughts