My article for Schools Week last October about the impact of Ofsted鈥檚 inspection framework on first and infant schools resulted in comments from hundreds of teachers and school leaders. Many shared their own unsatisfactory experiences, including in some cases the need to seek emotional support following what they referred to as 鈥渂rutal鈥� inspections. Many thought 鈥極utstanding鈥� a complete irrelevance because it was almost entirely unachievable in their schools. With good reason, many more called into question the validity of inspection judgements informed by subject 鈥榙eep dives鈥� in lower-primary and early years classes. They reported being left frustrated and demoralised by minor isolated examples being used as reasons for not achieving Ofsted鈥檚 top grade, and they were unanimous in seeing last-week-of-term inspections as evidence that the inspectorate is out of touch. Fortunately, and contrary to Ofsted鈥檚 claims, many also reported that parents were supportive of their schools and dismissive of what they regarded as bland and unhelpful reports. But until they saw my analysis, many had thought that they were the ones letting their schools down. In fact, the downgrading of previously exempt schools was systemic, and its disproportionate impact on first and infant schools undeniable. The latter were ten times more likely to be downgraded than secondaries, and this trend continues on routine Section 5 inspections, with fewer than 5 per cent of them judged 鈥極utstanding鈥� Morale in these schools is at an ebb, yet most who contacted me felt there was no point in complaining 鈥� that doing so would only make matters worse. The chief inspector commented recently that Ofsted鈥檚 complaints procedure is “not satisfying” 鈥� an understatement to say the least. And the result of trivialising the problem is a frankly underwhelming plan to reform the process. Amanda Spielman announced last week that the inspectorate wants complainants to 鈥渇eel that they have had a fair and thorough hearing鈥�. But they don鈥檛 want to feel it; they want to know that they have. Likewise, the notion that this can be dealt with 鈥渄uring the inspection rather than considered afterwards鈥� won鈥檛 inspire confidence that, when necessary, inspectors will be held to account. The inequity is as evident as Ofsted鈥檚 silence Nor does this deal with systemic issues with the inspection framework. The majority of formerly 鈥極utstanding鈥� first and infant schools inspected over the past 18 months have been downgraded. The inequity is as evident as Ofsted鈥檚 silence on the matter. Coming off the back of an exemption policy that left them virtually unmonitored, isolated and vulnerable, it鈥檚 an insult, added to an injury. Many will be pleased to see Ofsted acknowledging the impact of the period of enforced silence between inspection judgment and report publication. But allowing heads to share outcomes with others in confidence again places the burden on them. Who can they share with? Who can they trust? What if word gets out? It is surely in the inspectorate鈥檚 power to shorten the wait time, not to mention increasing transparency around the process.聽聽 And then there is the matter of internal consistency of reports themselves. How can a school鈥檚 safeguarding be deemed 鈥榠neffective鈥� in a report which states that 鈥減upils enjoy coming to this welcoming and vibrant school鈥�, 鈥渞espect and celebrate differences鈥�, 鈥渃an discuss what a healthy and unhealthy relationship looks like鈥� and 鈥渒now how to stay safe, including online鈥� 鈥� a school where most 鈥渂ehave sensibly鈥� and 鈥渒now who to turn to if they have a worry or a problem, [鈥 confident that they will get the help they need鈥�? Ofsted, we are told, are 鈥渓ooking at how we can return more quickly to schools who have work to do on safeguarding but are otherwise performing well鈥�. Spielman muses that safeguarding is 鈥渟ometimes mis-characterised as an exercise in paperwork鈥�, but that 鈥渋t is much more than that鈥�. How ironic, when it is precisely the paper trail that results in down-gradings. Once more, Ofsted off-loads its responsibility onto the shoulders of headteachers. 聽 I have spent a lifetime as a primary teacher, headteacher and governor. I still believe inspection plays an important role when it is fair, accurate and conducted to the highest standard according to a framework which is equitable and fit for purpose. It is none of these things.
Stephen Reeds 30 April 2023 Appraisal should be balanced with no agenda pre appraisal. It should be identifying strengths and weaknesses and showing how improvements can be made. Ofsted, whether they deny it or not, is a government inspired organ and as such has a political agenda. It has become a tool of “let’s bash teachers” which they see as a sure fire vote winner. Having been through 2 as a teacher, the first one over 20 years ago, it was stressful but the the school had a clear idea what was going to be the basis of the appraisal. The previous inspection was by the Local Authority who were far more political. They were out to do a hatchet job and made no secret of it. I was criticised personally to my face, loudly in front of the children as they were working. Unsurprisingly, that LEA group went on to form an Ofsted team. God help any “leafy Lane school” who had them.