Archive for March, 2013


How does OFSTED help failing schools?

March 21, 2013

Apologies for excessive reblogging, but if you read my blog, you need to read this one too.


March 20, 2013

This is good. I hope I’m not overdoing the reblogging.


March 18, 2013

The next one of these. They’ve all been interesting.


March 17, 2013

As I reblogged the first part of this, I feel I should also direct you to the follow-up. Also, it’s very good.


The Strange Case of OFSTED and School Governors

March 17, 2013

The following was sent in by a reader who is also a school governor. (Thanks.)

Given your recent posts about Ofsted I thought I might bring to your attention that last week there was some twittering about the role of governors in teacher observations. I will try to bring together some of the threads and some of the issues raised.

In the recent OFSTED report for Etz Chaim Jewish Primary School, one of the reasons given for the school not being outstanding included:
Governors are beginning to visit lessons but have not had training on what good teaching and learning looks like.

It went on to state in the section regarding governors:

They have made a few visits to lessons but have not yet had training about what makes good quality teaching and learning. This is planned for next term.

This was highlighted on Twitter, at which point I, and a number of other governors, pointed out that it was quite specifically not the role of a governor to go into class and assess the quality of teaching. It is the role of the head and SLT to assess the quality of teaching and the role of the governors to ensure the proper processes are in place, This separation of responsibility is quite clear and is even laid out on the DfE’s website in a section on Operation of the governing body: Governor visits to the school:
The purpose of governor visits is not to assess the quality of teaching provision or to pursue issues that relate to the day-to-day management of the school, other than as agreed with the headteacher or senior management team.

Initially the suggestion was that this appears to be a one-off rogue OFSTED inspector. It was also felt it perhaps highlighted the lack of in-depth knowledge of governance within a new free school’s governing body (predictable and evident in other Free School OFSTEDs); indeed many existing governors on Twitter felt they would be well aware that it was not within their role and would point this out quite vociferously to any inspector.

At this point, someone highlighted another case where OFSTED praised governors for being trained to observe; the actual line being:

Governors know the quality of teaching in the school because they are trained to observe and evaluate it,

A recently OFSTEDed chair of governors then tweeted:
OFSTED raised this with us, wanted [governors] to be in on [observations], then can understand how judgement is made

All of this seems to indicate an unwanted and worrying shift from OFSTED in their expectations of governors. Requiring governors to become involved in observations and evaluating teaching is clearly overstepping the mark. Are they really expecting people with no teaching experience to be involved in assessing classroom competency? (I know some OFSTED inspectors themselves fall into this category.) It seems some inspectors are unable to conceive that governors are be able to set in place processes for Quality Assurance without standing in the back of a classroom?

This all raises a number of issues. As you highlighted in your last blog, there seems to be a rise in people offering up their expertise in meeting OFSTED expectations for a price. Clearly someone is promoting courses on observing the quality of teaching for governors and some schools are using them to “evidence” that they are meeting their obligations without realising that this is not actually their role. OFSTED seem complicit and its own inspectors increasingly have expectations about governor involvement which are contradictory.

This is a very steep slippery slope, one which good governors will understand and speak out against, but one that poor governors will exploit. I am sure all teachers and governors know unsuitable people who would love to go into class and assess teachers, but that is something good governors should steer clear from. My personal experience is based on the fact I regularly help in school, the teachers know I am there to help with specifics and not observe them in class. As a result they hopefully feel comfortable with seeing me about and dont alter the way they teach, In this way I get a good overall view of the school, something that would soon change if they all knew I might be judging them at some point.

There does seem to be a shift in OFSTED’s expectation of Governors (I fully accept we are not all perfect) with Sir Michael Wilshaw leading the charge in this scope creep, unsubtly poking into governance without seeming to understand what and why governors do what they do. As if to highlight this, Wilshaw recently stated: “We expect governors to be more proactive and use the pupil premium to hold the school to account”. How can anyone use pupil premium to hold the school to account? It is this kind of a nonsensical statement that has become commonplace.

OFSTED need to clarify their expectation and confirm their position. They are plainly wrong to be placing some of these responsibilities on governors. Inspectors need to understand there must be a clear demarcation between governance and the day-to-day management of a school. Of course, the elephant in the room behind all this – and what makes all this more serious in the minds of governors – is the possibility that a governing body can be removed due to a poor OFSTED report, perhaps one which might contain criticism for governors not observing classes or not using the Pupil Premium to hold the school to account. Fear of OFSTED, and a desire to comply with any whim Sir Michael might come up with, is impacting governance as well as teaching staff.

Update 10/4/2013: There has now been some clarification about this. Details can be found here.


March 16, 2013

I like this blog generally and this, in particular, was all too familiar.


OFSTED Under Fire

March 16, 2013

I have no idea who this is, but they clearly have a point and I needed a picture for this blogpost. [Update: I’ve found out who it is. Let’s never speak of this again]

It’s been an interesting week for those of us with a burning obsession with OFSTED’s crusade against people and schools who actually teach.

As you probably know, Monday saw the sudden disappearance of their “good practice” videos. No longer will English teachers be aware that inspectors endorse the idea that flip cameras are “essential” to English departments or that running around the woods filming each other with them is the best way to interest boys in literature.

Tuesday saw a story in the Independent which to those of us working in education is firmly in the “doesn’t everybody already know this?” category, which nevertheless was probably a bit of an eye-opener to outsiders.

Ofsted inspectors are hiring themselves out for up to £600 a day to advise schools on how to pass its inspections, it was revealed yesterday. An investigation by the website Exaro found that while the schools’ regulator bans its staff inspectors from working as consultants, more than 1,000 contracted inspectors are allowed to sell their services to schools. Some even offer to carry out “mock” inspections, in return for payment.

There’s plenty to object to in any powerful employee of the state making private money by exploiting their position. Also there’s plenty wrong with an inspection system where advice on how to “play the game” is more important than exam results or good teaching. However, one aspect of the consultancy racket wasn’t mentioned in the article, and that’s the extent to which it may be one of the reasons for OFSTED’s failure to change in response to the wishes of their chief inspector. If inspectors have raked in the cash for telling schools “you must do groupwork, discovery learning and stop teachers from teaching” it makes it far less likely that they will then go into schools and act as if they have no preferred style of teaching. The judgements of an inspector who runs a private consultancy are always going to be suspect.

Imagine a very traditional teacher in a core subject who believes that learning of knowledge, not vague personal qualities, is the immediate aim of lessons (perhaps, the outstanding “didactic” maths teacher the chief inspector described in his speech here). Imagine they are observed by an inspector who also works for the consultancy Improve Education. According to their website, in English they advise on “developing a range of  practical strategies to build confidence, initiative and independence in pupils”. In maths their training promises to “Build pupil confidence, motivation and independence”. In science they promise to “Secure impact on pupils’ thinking and learning skills”. Now OFSTED themselves say (in a post-Wilshaw change to the inspection handbook):

Not all aspects of learning, for example pupils’ engagement, interest, concentration, determination, resilience and independence, will be seen in a single observation.

But this consultancy takes money training schools in how to show these “aspects of learning”. How will the inspector/consultant judge that traditional teacher? In line with the handbook, or in line with the advice they have been selling to schools?

And, as a note for non-teachers here,  just because these phrases might seem vague, doesn’t mean this is not important. In schools (and in those OFSTED reports which condemned lessons dominated by the teacher) these sorts of phrases carry a lot of weight and tell you a lot about the style of teaching. If you know an inspector is looking for “independence”, “resilience” or “thinking skills” you are likely to teach in particular ways, usually emphasising groupwork, problem-solving and discovery learning. It would be a brave (or foolish teacher) who interpreted “independence” to mean students quietly doing written work, “thinking skills” to be exemplified in solving 100s of challenging equations or “building resilience” to be brought about by writing particularly long essays. As long as consultants are making money telling people how to do the “OFSTED preferred style of teaching” how can anyone believe the chief inspector when he says there is no OFSTED preferred style of teaching?

Wednesday saw yet another OFSTED abuse of power in the shape of the publication of the inspection report into King’s Science Academy, a free school in Bradford. On the face of it, it does not seem ridiculous that a new school just settling into its facilities might be graded as “requiring improvement”. Contacts I have in new schools elsewhere have had similar experiences. The criticisms in the “teaching and learning” section of the report do not seem unreasonable, at least to those of us who do not know the school. What is outrageous are some of the statements in other sections of the report. Remember when reading these that OFSTED are not meant to have a preferred teaching style; inspectors are not meant to be looking for “engagement, interest and concentration” in every observation; free schools are meant to be able to do their own thing, and that the government have pushed academic rigour.

Under the heading “This is an academy that requires improvement. It is not good because:” we read:

The length of the academy day and intensive academic programme can detract from students’ enjoyment of learning, especially towards the end of the day when their attention wanes.

Under the headline “What does the school need to do to improve further?” we read that the school must get more students to make good progress by:

…ensuring that all students work independently and do not rely too much on teachers telling them what to do.

Most bizarrely of all, under the heading “The behaviour and safety of students” we read:

Students were keen to talk to inspectors and to express their opinions about the academy. They identified the lessons they enjoy and also the type of teaching they like best. This is when they take an active part in lessons and are able to investigate things for themselves; not always being told what to do in lessons and to carry out instructions. Some students told inspectors that they think that the academy day is too long, especially when they choose to, or have to stay for an extra hour to do their homework.

Based on those three sections alone it is hard not to endorse the comments of the school’s  principal who observed that: “they could not understand our model of education”. Now this is a school that has been visited and praised by the prime minister. It was described by the Telegraph as being the school which “comes closest to David Cameron’s vision of what a free school should be“. Being celebrated by politicians does not mean the school is any good, and if a free school is failing to deliver it should be held to account, but it does make one wonder by what right OFSTED can condemn its curriculum, expectations or style of teaching. Now I know there are those reading this who will think all of those comments are a perfectly fair thing to say about traditional teaching, an academic curriculum, or a schools that makes students work hard. But once again, that is the view of somebody with a preferred style of teaching and a belief that certain qualities should be observed in all observations (even those at the end of the day). It is not the sort of opinion OFSTED is meant to be expressing. They are not in line with those of government, their chief inspector or their own handbook. What mandate do OFSTED have to express this ideological judgement on how and what children should learn?

Of course, this point will probably be lost in political controversy about free schools. I’ve already been told on Twitter that my objection to the behaviour of OFSTED is down to some views I must hold about the politics of the free school policy. So I will take the opportunity to also lay into a less controversial recent OFSTED report that has been brought to my attention. The leaders of the Fallibroome Academy in Macclesfield are unlikely to object to the series of “Outstandings” which appear on their report, but it is as ideologically loaded as that for the King’s Science Academy and just as much a part of OFSTED’s crusade against traditional teaching. Apparently, even in this much praised school, to say “the quality of teaching is outstanding” still entails that teachers:

…involve students actively in their  learning and make them think for themselves. On very rare occasions, progress slows in lessons where students do not have enough independence…


What does the school need to do to improve further? Make teaching and learning even better by ensuring that all teachers … make the most of students’ excellent behaviour and very positive attitudes, by giving them more opportunities to work independently

Even more inevitably:

In a few lessons, teachers talked too much.

Now, I am of the view that, unless Wilshaw takes control of his own organisation, the OFSTED campaign against didactic teaching is going to continue. It may even take ministerial intervention to stop it. Which is why I was intrigued about my final bit of OFSTED news. Michael Gove told headteachers on Friday that: “One thing Michael [Wilshaw] acknowledges is that while there are many great inspectors, some of those who carry out inspections for Ofsted need to raise their game.” I’m hoping this indicates that the message is getting through to ministers but some of his additional comments suggest he is still complacent about about who really has power over schools and, despite the whining of the education esrtablishment, it’s not the politicians.

%d bloggers like this: