OFSTED Changes Judged Ineffective
James Whiting, General Secretary of the SEA, asserts the changes have totally missed the point and that therefore OFSTED is no longer fit for purpose
Are the OFSTED Changes Enough? Would the changes have prevented the tragic suicide of Ruth Perry?
No. As usual OFSTED has adopted a hubristic position which shows a total lack of understanding of the impact of its deliberations on schools, teachers and heads. The ‘changes’ do not stop the opprobrium being judged ‘inadequate’. They could still cause a school to suffer major damage, possibly fatal, to its reputation. Resignation or worse, of hard to recruit senior staff, will continue. The fate of being absorbed into a MAT (multi academy trust) still looms on the horizon for schools.
The change to inspection of safeguarding will happen like this. A flaw in the paperwork is detected, staff have not yet completed training on the latest edition of ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ (this document is added to every year without anyone questioning whether it is necessary), medical records are mislaid, or a child is seen performing a ‘sexualised’ dance in the playground. Because there are no gradations in the safeguarding judgement, it is labelled either ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’. So the head of a fictional school, where a similar fault is discovered, is told by the lead inspector:-
‘In spite of the school being judged ‘good’ in other aspects, I’m afraid safeguarding is ineffective and therefore the school is ‘inadequate’. Oh… we have made a change so there is no need for you to collapse under the pressure. You don’t have to keep the outcome totally confidential anymore! You can now talk about it privately with colleagues if you choose. I know surrounding schools are all good and won’t benefit for your misfortune. They may have some valuable advice. We will come back in three months and see if you have put it right. If you have, we will regrade you back to good. In the circumstances I think that is a generous offer’
‘Oh thank you’, says the head teacher. ‘So the inadequate judgement is on hold? You see we are about to hold an event for prospective parents.’
‘No not exactly. The report will still be published in the normal way with ‘inadequate’ on the front page. You see we publish within 30 days so the report will still come out. Your parents, the community, the council and the local estate agents will all know you are inadequate. We can’t withhold the truth that you have endangered the safety of the children in your care. That would not be fair on parents and those thinking of coming to your school who will need all the facts in front of them. Of course, we will mention that you are being given that very generous second chance.’
The head teacher is speechless and collapses.
What they could have done is hold their hands up to the cruelty of the way a safeguarding judgment drives the whole school grade. Safeguarding has to be crucial, but schools can fail for relatively minor imperfections. All the examples I have given could be put right in three months. Why didn’t they say to our head the following?
‘Many staff do not appear to understand how you intend to tackle child on child abuse. The half hour training they received was clearly inadequate. You have not taken the issue seriously enough. Otherwise this is a good school with some exemplary curriculum sequencing and pupils have benefited from strong personal development programmes. Therefore, we will withhold our overall judgement for three months. In the meantime, you will remain ‘good’. Do consult your colleagues for advice. An inspector will come to check you have implemented what we have asked and if that is the case your school will receive an updated ‘good’ judgment.
Head holds her hands up to the problem and thanks the inspector for the time to put it right.
Judgement on the changes OFSTED have made in the face of teacher flight from the profession, head teacher suicide, and accusations of inhumanity?
The changes will do little or nothing to prevent a possible repeat of the Ruth Perry case in the future. They are therefore ‘ineffective’
Judgement on OFSTED as a national inspectorate.
`The ineffective changes judgement means OFSTED is out of touch and has totally misread the seriousness of the situation. It is blind to the impact of its actions on schools, colleges and others, meaning OFSTED is ‘inadequate’ in carrying out its remit. It should therefore be disbanded.