Articles (which are written in a personal capacity and are not necessarily SEA policy)
We are happy to publish socialist and progressive education opinion from a range of sources. Send to info@socialisteducationalassociation.org
The Cruelties of OFSTED, John Cosgrove
OFSTED Forces Tory Agenda on Teacher Education, Pam Tatlow
The Academies Review: DFE’s Road to Nowhere, John Bolt
NEU Conference Reflections Mel Griffiths, Louise Regan, Ian Duckett
‘Campaigning for Socialism: Memoirs of Max and Margaret Morris’ book out soon
The Cruelties of OFSTED
John Cosgrove, retired primary head, reflects on the impact of the inhumane inspection process on his Reading head teacher colleague Ruth Perry
In January, the town where I was previously a headteacher lost a valued member of its education community. Others, including my wife, knew Ruth Perry much better than I did; my school and Ruth’s were physically as far apart as it was possible to be while still in the same town but we had worked together a couple of times and chatted at conferences and meetings; she had visited my school. I knew her to be kind, caring, cheerful, thoughtful, strong and completely dedicated to the children of her school. Very much a professional, she was respected by her peers, who had chosen her as our representative on the Local Safeguarding Board, and a few years ago, when the Local Authority needed a head to step in temporarily and support another school which had failed its Ofsted and “lost” its leader, it turned to Ruth.
Then, towards the end of last year, Ofsted arrived in Ruth’s school and on their first day they told her she was a failing head. The quality of education was good, the inspectors found, behaviour and attitudes were good, pupils’ personal development likewise good, Early Years good… but leadership and management were inadequate. Of course, all those other areas could not have been good if the leadership really were inadequate, they didn’t all lead themselves though that’s what the report would have us believe. If I were Ruth, I might have read that as “everything is great about the school except me.”
The big issue was safeguarding. This is what Ofsted calls a “limiting judgement” which means it trumps everything else. If safeguarding fails, the school fails. And this school failed, the report says, because not all staff had been trained in using the online systems to record safeguarding concerns so actions were not always tracked; in addition, not all staff employment records were complete. Note: the inspectors acknowledged that staff were able to identify concerns and knew to report these to senior leaders, the issue was merely the paperwork (or rather computer work) which “pose[d] potential risks to pupils”. Potential risks, not real risks. The inspectors were not saying any child in the school was at risk. In fact: “The pastoral support provided for pupils is a strength and they appreciate this level of care.” Safeguarding, the inspectors would have us believe, is inadequate but pastoral support is a strength.
In these circumstances an inspectorate which really cared about children would have a protocol to point out issues and to return in a month to check that they have been remedied. Destroying a headteacher’s career is not the most effective way to fix any deficiency in safeguarding. But Ofsted has never been about supporting or improving schools. There are, let’s be clear, many Ofsted inspectors past and present who do genuinely care about school improvement, who are doing their best, but Ofsted’s purpose is to pass judgement.
After two days in the school the Ofsted inspectors left. From this moment, Ruth knew it was only a matter of time before she was dismissed. The school she was head of was the one she had attended as a child; this was her community; people knew her; she was respected and well liked; and one day soon her status, her reputation, her good name was going to be destroyed. She would be publicly shamed. Every single day she was waiting the pressure must have got worse. And the wait dragged on. Her sister recalls: I remember her clearly one day saying ‘52 days and counting’. Every day she had this weight on her shoulders hanging over her and she wasn’t officially allowed to talk to her family.
Ofsted instructs heads not to say anything about a verdict until the report is published. So Ruth was forbidden from gently preparing the school community for the shock. Her peers were not able to rally round in support. Those gratuitously cruel rules meant she had to carry the burden on her own, a solitary via crucis walked by every headteacher in this position.
Ofsted’s appeal process is a very poor joke, even Amanda Spielman has acknowledged it is “not satisfying” but since a court case in 2018, schools graded inadequate do not even have the right to an “unsatisfying” appeal. An organisation which was concerned with the wellbeing of those who work in education would ensure it has a first rate appeals procedure. Ofsted is made up of human beings who can make mistakes like everyone else; a proper appeals process gives credibility to judgements; and, perhaps just as importantly, an appeal would give a headteacher waiting for the publication of a report something to do rather than brood: preparing a case, going over the facts, speaking to others, writing it all down, would help with the very human processing of a shocking event.
I believe Ofsted should be abolished. I have written before that it damages schools, harms pupils and destroys good people. But as long as it exists, the cruelty needs to be removed. Immediately. Ofsted itself should stop publishing gradings, remove safeguarding from the process and find a genuinely effective way of ensuring all children are safe, and it must set up a proper, fair appeals process.
OFSTED Forces Tory Agenda on Teacher Education
Pam Tatlow, SEA deputy General Secretary and Higher Education lead, considers the impact of OFSTED inspections on teacher education providers
The role of Ofsted in inspecting schools has rightly come under intense scrutiny. Parents, teachers, and teaching unions have called both for a pause in inspections but also for its abolition and replacement with a system of school peer review. Perhaps less well-known is Ofsted’s role in inspecting initial teacher education provision. In this as in other areas, Ofsted seems once again to have swallowed the government’s shilling.
From 2020, the Ofsted framework for inspecting ITE changed dramatically to reflect the Department for Education’s imposition of the Initial Teacher Training Core Content Framework (CCF). With its emphasis on memory and pupils gaining knowledge, the CCF has changed the whole approach to ITE in England, undermining the autonomy of universities and other providers of teacher education and furthering the process of deprofessionalising teaching.
Ofsted’s new inspection framework focuses on the CCF but also on the extent to which mentors in schools are delivering the Early Career Framework (ECF). Moreover, universities rather than schools are held to account for the extent to which mentors are delivering the ECF.
Prior to this new inspection framework, all universities which were ITE providers had been classified by Ofsted as outstanding. By April 2022, 46% of ITE providers which had been inspected under the new Framework had been judged by Ofsted to require improvement with many judgments linked with the delivery of mentoring in schools.
Unsurprisingly, leaders of teacher training questioned the integrity and independence of these Ofsted judgements especially since at the same time the DfE had announced a market review of ITE providers. This required universities and other established ITE providers to apply for accreditation – itself a two Stage process. Stage 1 accreditation was a ‘paper-based’ exercise but who was appointed to judge submissions? None other than Ofsted – judge and jury of all things ITE.
In ITE as in schools and other education settings, Ofsted is now simply an agent of Ministerial policy. Its replacement can’t come soon enough.
The Academies Review: DFE’s Road to Nowhere
John Bolt, SEA vice chair membership and previous general secretary, unpicks the DFE’s latest attempt to justify putting all schools into multi-academy trusts (MATS)
Following the collapse of the Schools’ Bill last year, the government is now trying yet again to make some sense of the chaotic school system it has created since 2010. The Academies Regulatory and Commissioning Review[1] has now emerged. There is precious little in it that will address all the issues the government has created for itself. They have clearly given up on any serious attempt to deal with the problems the Schools’ Bill was supported to address. But it’s interesting in that it provides some insight into how ministers think about the school system and into the dishonesty with which academisation is promoted.
First of all, it doubles down on the multi-academy trust as their preferred model of school organisation. No other model is considered – even single academy trusts get no attention and are implicitly seen to be part of the problem not part of the solution.
The document is also full of entirely unproven assertions and some spectacular abuse of statistics. To take just a couple of examples:
“Good and Outstanding schools now make up 88% of all schools, up from 68% in 2010, in part due to the impact of trusts”. In fact, there is no evidence that academies have improved more than any other kind of school. An analysis of inspection outcomes by Angel Solutions for the LGA[2] has demonstrated that there is no statistical link between trust membership and improvement in inspections. It would be equally true to say that there are more good and outstanding schools in part due to the work of local authorities.
“We know that the best multi-academy trusts can achieve great results for children. If all children did as well in reading, writing and maths at key stage 2 as pupils in multi-academy trusts performing at the 90th percentile, performance in primaries would be 14 percentage points higher nationally and 19 percentage points higher for disadvantaged pupils.” This is a quite stunningly meaningless statement. If everyone did as well as the best, results would be better. Amazing – who would have guessed! If everyone did as well as the best LA schools, results would be better too. All this really says is that a lot of MATs do quite a lot worse than the best.
The publication of the review was accompanied by a DfE analysis of what it is pleased to call the needs of 55 priority areas[3]. The sophisticated level of their analysis can be admired by looking at this example:
“Our vision for Blackpool is to raise educational standards by consolidating the local trust system and supporting the presence of high-quality trusts who can increase attendance, reduce exclusions and improve inclusion, especially with disadvantaged pupils. At primary, our ambition is a landscape of high-quality primary-focused or cross-phase trusts who, through their collective strength, can increase attainment and progress. At secondary our priority is to improve school standards and educational outcomes, especially for disadvantaged pupils.[4]”
All this really amounts to is a rather plaintive cry for more trusts to be established where there aren’t many and for existing trusts to expand. Having failed to come up with any other way of making a reality of their aim of getting all schools into MATs, ministers are reduced to Mr Micawber figures, just hoping that something will turn up.
Implicit though, in this, is some recognition that the current system is a mess. The focus on geographical coherence and the opposition to what they call “unplanned incremental growth” by MATs is new and different. It would suggest that actually much of the current MAT landscape is not fit for purpose given its total failure to take any account of geography.
Where the DfE shows its true colours however is when it starts to talk about commissioning and conversions. It remains convinced that the only way you improve a school by changing who runs it. There is a long section explaining what Regional Directors will take account of when moving schools around like pieces on a chess board. There are 3 stages:
• Stage 1 - Assess strategic needs, including the phase of the schools involved and whether they have faith requirements. They will also check for financial and governance breaches which would rule out the trust or trusts under consideration.
• Stage 2 - Consider quality factors: Regions Group will consider a range of quantitative and qualitative data to understand the effectiveness of support provided by the trust or trusts to the school or schools they would be working with.
• Stage 3 - Reach recommendation in the best interests of the schools, trusts and communities involved.
I can only compare this to the District Officer laying down the law to the locals in the days of the Empire. In, of course, what they saw as the best interests of the local population. But what no one is doing is to actually ask local communities what they want. The absence of even a token reference to local consultation is simply stunning but is of a piece with the behaviour of academy trusts up and down the country. Most recently, we read of an academisation consultation meeting held on-line in which all parents were muted! The opinions of parents are simply not a factor in this government’s decision-making process.
Referring back to the example about Blackpool quoted above, the giveaway is perhaps the opening phrase – “Our Vision”. Whose vision? Not the people of Blackpool. Not parents, school staff, employers, local colleges or councillors. It’s the vision rather of a civil servant cutting and pasting a set of standard phrases in obedience to ministerial demands.
It is absolutely clear from this report that the DfE vision of a school system driven exclusively from Whitehall is alive and well. While devolution and “taking back control” is the order of the day elsewhere, it seems that education remains something that local communities are to have no say in.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1149155/Academies_Regulatory_and_Commissioning_Review.pdf
[2] https://www.angelsolutions.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Analysis-of-Ofsted-Inspection-Outcomes-by-School-Type-2022-03-31.pdf
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-investment-area-eia-trust-development-statements-tds
[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1145527/North_West_trust_development_statements.pdf
Reflections on NEU Conference 2023
Mel Griffiths, Give Us Back Our Schools Campaign Co-ordinator, laments the failure of the NEU to link current campaigns to the need to regulate schools and bring them back under democratic oversight
The NEU has been busy this year with three major campaigns on pay, free school meals for all primary children and against OFSTED. However, a resolution was passed last year to:-
1. undertake a publicity campaign to educate the wider public on the need to reverse deregulation in education
2. develop an industrial strategy to aim to reverse deregulation enabling a return to national pay and conditions for all education workers
3. continue to work with the Socialist Educational Association "Give Us Back Our Schools" Campaign.
The executive appears to have put the campaign for a return of all schools to the public sector on the back burner and has missed opportunities to link it to its other priorities.
The three campaigns that the NEU are prioritising, especially the strike to win a fully funded pay increase in line with inflation, are important but if won will only temporarily alleviate the symptoms caused by the systematic marketisation and privatisation of our public services. Academies do not have to honour nationally agreed pay increases, funded or not.
Similarly, the laudable ‘No Child Left behind Campaign’ to bring about free school meals for all is threatened by privatisation. There is no way to ensure that private companies, who now mainly provide school meals to our pupils, actually provide nutritious food.
The NEU must continue to pursue these campaigns and continue to resist every academisation and MAT expansion. It must also recognise that unless deregulation as well as privatisation is challenged and reversed they will not be able to improve the pay and conditions of many of their members or ensure that no child is ‘left behind’. The NEU should stop just reacting to attacks and start a joined-up campaign to bring education services back in house.
Debate and motions at this year’s NEU conference demonstrated both the need to reverse deregulation in education and the need to explain the arguments to support this, not just to the wider public but also to serving teachers. Many teachers in post now, weren't born when the 1988 Education Act began to dismantle comprehensive state education and are unaware of its consequences
This year Motion 13 (Academies) once again instructed the NEU executive to prioritise the fight against further academisation, campaign for the end of academisation and the return all schools to the public sector. The motion was passed but there were speeches from young delegates who didn't see the need to bring all schools back. The arguments presented against the motion were that there are progressive MATs and that a MAT had saved a school from closure by the Local Authority.
The pay campaign and the recent OFSTED issue are ideal opportunities to show the public (and education staff) why delegation of money away from local authorities to individual heads and CEOs principally on the basis of pupil numbers, is feeding a destructive market. The false accountability system sustained by SATs, league tables, OFSTED and so called ‘parental choice’, is destroying teachers national pay and conditions and the educational experience of the children in our schools.
Ian Duckett, SEA Treasurer, regrets the lack of ambition the NEU shows for agency workers
Two motions on supply teachers were debated at the conference.
In England supply teaching is almost entirely de-regulated and paid for on the basis of how much profit recruitment agencies can make. This means they drive down teachers’ pay rates as much as they can.
The agency system though will not be abolished overnight even if parliament decides to shift supply provision back to local authority pools. Regulation and oversight is therefore important now including data on money spent and service provided.
Authorities in N Ireland , Scotland and Isle of Man are paying supply teachers direct and provide a model for a fairer system. On a more positive note Wales already has a Framework Agreement to regulate supply provision where agencies have to sign up to a code of practice. Sadly, a motion calling for equity with full time employed teachers and calling the executive to pursue agency workers rights through the courts was defeated and the other, less radical one ‘supporting agency workers in education - making agencies accountable’ passed.
‘Campaigning for Socialism: Memoirs of Max and Margaret Morris’
Margaret Morris has recently completed this book which will be published in two weeks.
It tells the story of the campaigns for an equitable education service from the sixties onwards and many other campaigns too. Put together by Margaret who did not always agree on the way forward with her head teacher husband, the book tells the story of how the trade unions and the SEA’s campaigning led to progress. Today, the educational plight of working class children is worse than ever. What can we learn from our history ? More information is available here and we will publish a review in this blog soon.