h1

An Example of OFSTED’s Inconsistency

July 24, 2014

This is something that has (as you’ll see below) already been pointed out during Michael Wilshaw’s appearance before the House of Common’s Education Committee a couple of weeks ago, but it’s worth bringing up here as an almost perfect example of how the same evidence can be interpreted in different ways by inspectors.

When Oldknow Academy was inspected in January 2013 it was found to be outstanding in every respect. One piece of evidence for this was:

The very wide range of additional activities and extra-curricular opportunities motivates the pupils and results in extremely positive attitudes towards school. For example, pupils love the academy’s farm and the opportunity to look after and interact with a range of animals from goats and rabbits to snakes and geckos. They feel they are fortunate to be in an academy which offers them opportunities such as the week-long visit for 40 pupils to participate in a trip to Saudi Arabia. For pupils who spoke to the inspectors, last year’s trip had clearly been a life-changing experience…

…The academy does all it can to remove any barriers to learning and to ensure that every pupil has equal opportunities to succeed. The large amount of pupil premium funding is used to ensure this happens. Funding has been used to reduce the number of pupils in each class, so that those who need it can have more individual attention. Funding is also used to subsidise uniforms, trips and even large-scale trips, such as the ones to Saudi Arabia, to ensure that any pupil is able to participate.

So clearly, the Saudi Arabia trip was a positive and an example of how equal opportunities were important to the school. Yet when the school was re-inspected during the Trojan Horse affair and found to be Inadequate, the following piece of evidence appeared:

Leaders have not assessed adequately the risks to pupils associated with trips, visitors and links with other institutions. For example, the academy has links with a school in Saudi Arabia but could not tell inspectors whether risk assessment had been carried out on the people or materials that pupils may come into contact with…

…Governors have used the academy’s budget to subsidise a trip to Saudi Arabia for only Muslim staff and pupils. The choice of destination meant that pupils from other faiths were not able to join the trip. Governors who accompany the trip are paid for from the academy budget. Inspectors were told that in 2013 a relative of the academy’s governor joined the trip from Pakistan without the necessary checks having been made.

So inspectors managed to look at the same trip, and the fact that it was subsidised, and in one case use it as evidence of something positive about the school, and in the other case use it to prove something negative about the school.

As I said, this did come up  during the chief inspector’s appearance (alongside another HMI, Andrew Cook) before the House of Common’s Education Committee:

Q57  Chair: If you want honesty about performance from everyone else, is it not also important that you be honest about your capabilities? Lorna [Fitzjohn, Regional Director for the West Midlands] was talking about changes -as were you, Sir Michael—and saying that a rapid turnover of staff contributes to a different picture painted by Ofsted. However, when at Oldknow academy a visit to Saudi Arabia is picked out for particular praise as suggesting the extracurricular activities and the richness of the offer of the school in January 2013, and the self‑same visit is picked out as a particular sign of a cause for concern in April 2014, that does suggest some kind of inconsistency. It will raise questions about your capacity and capability to have an objective assessment when you are involved in a national moral panic and when you are not.

Sir Michael Wilshaw: But it does reinforce the point I had previously made, which is that in the first inspection we looked at a whole range of things, not just governance and leadership. On the second inspection we looked in much greater depth at governance and leadership—and in relation to Pat Glass’ point, we looked at how much money was being spent from the school budget to send children to Saudi Arabia and also whether it was open to all children and not just to some.

Q58  Chair: You would hope that if someone was bang to rights and had made an error, they would just put their hands up, would you not? Is that not what your inspectors would hope for from schools? Is that not what I have just invited you to do? You have just given me a carefully worded explanation of why the clearly unacceptable inconsistency was somehow okay. I would suggest to you it was not and that it would have been better to put your hands up and say, “That particular instance does not reflect well on us.” Would that not be better for the kind of transparency, openness and honesty that we all want to see from everyone?

Sir Michael Wilshaw: We hope we are transparent and honest. I am very keen that the people we inspect have confidence in the quality of our inspections and the quality of our inspectors. I believe the quality of inspection and the quality of our inspectors has gone up over the last few years.

Q59  Chair: Part of that confidence is trust. When you try to make out that it is okay to find exactly the same thing great one minute and a sign of weakness another, and you cannot even say, “That was embarrassing; we got it wrong,” that does not encourage confidence in your systems, does it?

Sir Michael Wilshaw: Before Andrew comes in, I just want to emphasise the point that the two inspections were very different. One looked at a whole range of issues. The second inspection looked at leadership and governance, and was where that HMI could really explore how that money was spent sending those youngsters to Saudi Arabia.

Q60  Chair: Forgive me for being unconvinced. Andrew, convince me.

Andrew Cook: I was on the Oldknow inspection and I think it would be very fair to say, as Sir Michael has just said, that we drilled down very much into some of the safeguarding issues around the trip. It would also be fair to say that this is again a school where staff were completely polarised. There were very many unhappy staff in that school, and many of those staff were beginning to tell us things about the school and unearth evidence that had not been seen before. It was because of that, and because of our focus on safeguarding and looking at the management of that trip, that we identified some concerns about it.

Q61  Chair: It was particularly about the exclusion of some children from it. In truth, while it looked originally like a good, classic example of an enriching activity, it turned out it was rather a narrow, limited and unfairly distributed school good. Is that the point?

Andrew Cook: There was also, as reported, some issues around whether or not all of the safeguarding checks on all of those adults that attended the trip had been done as thoroughly as they should have been done.

Q62  Ian Mearns: That still leaves massive questions in my mind about the first inspection. It really does leave massive questions about the first inspection. A school has been declared outstanding even though all of those shortcomings were there. The problem was that the Ofsted inspectors on site did not unearth any of that. Now that, to me, tells me that there is a significant shortcoming in the regime of Ofsted inspections per se. That is the conclusion that I draw.

Sir Michael Wilshaw: I strongly refute that. We have banged on over the last hour about the reasons why these schools declined. The main reason is because the heads left—were forced out—and there was huge instability. That instability can happen within weeks of the head leaving. That is why I think in the first inspection we did not pick that up: the heads were still there.

So just in case schools were wondering where they stand, what you do can be both evidence for being outstanding and for being inadequate at the same time, it all depends on what the inspectors happen to be looking for at the time and who happens to be in charge at the time of the inspection.

And people wonder why schools are so desperate for any information about what OFSTED really want, and what they will look for.

About these ads

5 comments

  1. Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.


  2. ” It would also be fair to say that this is again a school where staff were completely polarised. There were very many unhappy staff in that school, and many of those staff were beginning to tell us things about the school and unearth evidence that had not been seen before.”

    I think by this he means that the second time around they actually talked to a wider range of staff. Most inspections seem to consist of data trawls and discussions with SLT in which any statement which can’t be instantly analysed with available data is accepted. I’ve been in on discussions with inspectors who were informed-and who accepted unconditionally-the fact that staff morale was improving along with trust and confidence in senior leadership. This, in a school where 45% of staff had either moved on or were due to move on at the end of the year. This “staff support” even made it into the report and no doubt contributed to the finding that the leadership had the capacity to further improve blah blah….

    To have inspected Oldknow- first time around-and either missed the complete polarisation of staff or considered it unimportant speaks of a major failing. The issue around the trip to Saudi Arabia is certainly embarrassing but explainable in terms of misplaced political correctness. I hate to say it but I think most people’s reaction on hearing of a trip to Saudi Arabia would be a massive “WTF?” Equally, no OFSTED inspector is ever going to voice concerns in print, nor likely to push for details of the trip-itineraries, CRB checks etc- for fears of being labelled culturally insensitive. I’m fairly sure that none of the robust language used in the subsequent report would ever have been voiced in the absence of an unequivocal ‘go ahead’ from Whitehall.

    The oversight regarding polarised staff, however, is not one that is only confined to religious/culturally contentious contexts. This is a failing that I imagine occurs all the time. Possibly, it’s just me and ‘outstanding’ leadership and governance can coexist in an environment where staff have no confidence or trust in leadership…but this is not really likely is it, other than in a context where there’s an overriding assumption that ‘good’ leadership, committed to improvement, will always create unhappy staff since staff are reactionary, lazy and resistant to change. This doesn’t match any experience I’ve encountered though. I’ve always found that decent leadership are widely supported, even enthusiastically supported.


  3. […] post by Old Andrew covers similar ground: An Example of OFSTED’s Inconsistency Teacher Talk: the missing link The shocking mediation of Ofsted criteria by ‘rogue’ inspectors […]


  4. Reblogged this on Apprenticeship, Skills & Employability..


  5. […] others had no problem with when people they agreed with were doing it. This also reminds me of a “Trojan Horse” school being criticised for something that, while questionable, was praised a few months earlier. As far […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,533 other followers

%d bloggers like this: