Before the election, Bridget Phillipson promised that following a Labour victory the government would reform Ofsted. That victory has now been secured, but what of that promised reform?
The findings of the Alternative Big Listen (TABL) were published last week at the same as the Reading council’s report in response to the Caversham Primary School tragedy. Both reveal that Ofsted is facing an existential crisis: whether to be engaged in minor piecemeal change, to be fundamentally reformed or to be replaced altogether.
The second of these is politically and educationally the most likely outcome. This will involve more than minor changes like the immediate removal of one-word judgments and the introduction of report cards promised by Labour in its election campaign.It will also require very substantial root-and branch reform, allowing for considerable initial uncertainty over its final outcome.
The headlines from TABL are stark:
- Ofsted is no longer fit for purpose;
- Simplistic one- or two-word judgments should not be used to characterise the overall effectiveness of a school;
- Inspectors do not sufficiently consider the context of a school’s local area in the judgements they make;
- There should be moratorium on routine (not all) inspections until a fundamental review has taken place.
Most of the other TABL findings are challenging, even chastening, to those supporting the inspection status quo. The TABL report itself is damning, far more negative than its authors envisaged at the start of their enquiry.
It is clear that Ofsted is broken in the eyes of those working in the schools sector. It has lost much of whatever legitimacy it once had. It is not only ‘unfit for purpose’ but, in the new political landscape, its purpose itself needs redefining and new policies and procedures must be put in place to pursue it.
The secretary of state is well placed to orchestrate a far-reaching review.
The way inspections are carried out come in for very considerable criticism and require more than sensitivity training to put right. The judgments inspectors make are not seen as valid or reliable enough; they need better grounding in publicly available evidence and in improved moderation procedures to secure greater consistency.
Meanwhile, inspection reports are seen as formulaic and nowhere near as clear, authentic or helpful as they could be; their format and contents require re-examination. There is a need for a reconstituted system to recruit and retain senior personnel who can provide breadth of experience and expertise in inspection over a far longer period than the current turnover of staff allows.
There also needs to be a serious debate about the future of school inspection post-Spielman. With her new mandate, the secretary of state is well placed to orchestrate a far-reaching review.
Teachers’ unions, subject associations, parents’ groups, the Chartered College of Teaching and personnel from universities, local authorities and multi-academy trusts should be involved, as well as current and former Ofsted inspectors, experts from other jurisdictions and the Department of Education.
Such an enquiry is urgent but should not be conducted in haste. A period of at least a year or so free from the threat of routine inspections could create a period of calm reflection for the much-needed reconstitution of Ofsted to take place.
In the meantime, existing HMIs could contribute to the review, continue to conduct national surveys, assess the success of approaches to peer review, and be on hand to inspect what is likely to be a very small number of schools where very serious problems are detected or otherwise brought to the attention of authorities.
It is over thirty years since the last major overhaul of school inspection. Judging from the TABL respondents, it is long overdue.
Our new secretary of state and chief inspector will need to demonstrate firm, principled action.
