Showing posts with label Ofsted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ofsted. Show all posts

Tuesday 19 December 2023

Ofsted, Secretary of State & Reading Borough Council given until February 7th 2024 to respond to Coroner's report on Ruth Perry's death

The Berkshire Senior Coroner, Heidi Connor, published her Report to Prevent Future Deaths on headteacher Ruth Perry's death today.

She gave a narrative finding of:

Suicide contributed to by an Ofsted Inspection in November 2022.

The Chief Inspector of Ofsted, Secretary of State for Education for Education and the Chief Executive of Reading Council are given until February 7th 2024 to respond the the findings in the report.

The Report:

The report is likely to lead to increased demands from educatioalists, school trade unions and professional associations, the public and political parties for the reform, at the minimum, or abolition of Ofsted.

Commenting on the report, Jenny Cooper, Co-secretary of Brent NEU said:

 Very sadly Ruth Perry is not the first person to die with Ofsted having contributed either directly or indirectly. And she will not be the last if this damaging, authoritarian, inappropriate and unfit for purpose system of inspection is allowed to continue. The NEU has called for its abolition and stands by this call.


Friday 10 November 2023

Lifting the lid on Michaela's curriculum

 

Saturday 1 April 2023

NAHT takes first step towards judicial review proceedings against Ofsted following its failure to pause inspections

From the National Association of Headteachers

Yesterday school leaders’ union NAHT wrote to His Majesty’s Chief Inspector to demand a suspension of Ofsted inspections while steps are taken to address the risk to the mental health of school staff and enable suicide risk prevention to be put in place.

The letter is the first step in judicial review proceedings and cites Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes obligations on public authorities to take reasonable steps where there is a real and immediate risk of a loss of life.

NAHT argues that the recent death of Ruth Perry, and the citing of Ofsted inspections as a factor in the deaths of 10 teachers*, indicates the human rights of school staff are not being protected by the current Ofsted regime and that immediate action is needed to minimise harm and protect lives.

NAHT has called on Ofsted to pause inspections whilst a review is carried out to identify and put in place immediate measures to minimise the risk of harm to school staff.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: 

The tragic death of Ruth Perry has shone a light on the intolerable pressure placed on school leaders and their staff during Ofsted inspections. It shouldn’t take a tragedy to force change, but Ofsted has shown no inclination to change on its own.

We have requested that Ofsted works with NAHT, as recognised representatives of school leaders, to identify and agree immediate actions that can be taken. It is essential that these actions are discussed and agreed with NAHT if it is to make any meaningful difference. It needs to be done with us, not to us. Up until now those requests have been ignored. As such, we have no alternative but to go down this route.

Whilst Ofsted have issued warm words, that is simply not good enough and it has shown nothing like the understanding or urgency that this situation requires.

School leaders are determined that this should be a watershed moment and that such a tragedy can never be allowed to happen again.

NAHT have demanded a reply from Ofsted by Thursday 6 April.  

* As revealed in a recent Observer article. The underlying academic report cited by The Observer can be found here.

Friday 31 March 2023

Nearly 50 years on, time for a new 'Great Debate' on education? Ofsted, high stakes testing, narrowed curriculum and a devalued profession all features of the current crisis

 

I was in my first year of teaching, as a mature entrant, almost 50 years ago in 1976 when the Prime Minister James Callaghan launched the 'Great Debate' on education in a speech at Ruskin College. LINK

That speech was the launchpad for the many changes that followed implemented by both Labour and Conservative governments, some good, some bad and often with unexpected consequences.

Today government attitudes towards teachers exemplified by the derisory pay offer are clear and contribute to low morale, demotivation and a recruitment and retention crisis. The role of Ofsted is under scrutiny as never before following the tragic death of a headteacher in the wake of an expected poor Ofsted judgement on the school that she cherished. Ofsted itself, despite claims of its independence is linked to Government policies including the high stakes testing found in primary schools, which in turn contributes to a narrowing of the curriculum and the loss of arts  subjects.  This is compounded by a school funding crisis that means such subjects are a low priority when it comes to allocating the school budget.

It is worth quoting Callaghan:

Everyone is allowed to put his oar in on how to overcome our economic problems, how to put the balance of payments right, how to secure more exports and so on and so on. Very important too. But I venture to say not as important in the long run as preparing future generations for life. RH Tawney, from whom I derived a great deal of my thinking years ago, wrote that the endowment of our children is the most precious of the natural resources of this community. So I do not hesitate to discuss how these endowments should be nurtured.

 

Let me answer that question 'what do we want from the education of our children and young people?' with Tawney's words once more. He said: 'What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.'

The campaign group 'More Than a Score' has undertaken research to see what parents wish for in terms of their children's education and their report concludes LINK:

It is wrong to use SATs results as shorthand for high standards in primary education. While test data may generate easy headlines, parents and school leaders understand that an 11-year-old’s tests results cannot provide an accurate picture of their overall academic abilities and should not be used as a blunt tool to measure standards.

These views — held by an overwhelming majority — are not reflected in current policy. Everyone who values children’s education believes in high standards, but it is time to change the language and shift the debate so that children’s learning, not data, is prioritised.

The report is extremely important at a time when government ministers justify their education policy, including Ofsted and SATs with the mantra 'we know this is what parents want' backed up with very little evidence. Callaghan called for a 'rational debate based on the facts' - More Than a Score's effort to intruduce some evidence into the discussion is very welcome.

Reacting to the report Rosamund McNeil, assistant general secretary off the National Education Union, said;  

The views of education staff and parents have been made clear in More Than a Score’s research – primary school SATs are not an indicator of educational standards, or whether a child is ready for secondary school.

Both parents and educators feel standards should be measured in better ways, such as engagement with a broad and rich curriculum, not limited to English and Maths. This is a standard our high-stakes system is failing to meet. Schools face incredible pressure from government to prioritise tested subjects which mean the arts, humanities, and sciences are being squeezed from the school week.

Children’s mental health should also be an indicator of standards. Engagement with, and excitement about learning is not well served by SATs preparation or the SATs pressure. Children deserve a fairer system which captures more of what they achieve and they contribute. Children should be looking forward to another day of primary school, where they feel inspired and happy to learn.

The NEU wants to see an assessment system that supports children's learning and gives meaningful information to parents and educators. The system needs to be redesigned to meet those standards, not the ones set by government to hold schools to account.

High Stakes Testing is just one aspect of the current crisis and the report (below) perhaps will start a process of evidence gathering that will contribute to a new debate.


Monday 27 March 2023

NEU Executive recommends rejection of derisory unfunded Government pay offer

 20,000 teachers took part in a National Education Union on-line meeting this evening to hear the Government's pay offer after 6 days of intensive negotiations. As the meeting progressed, on-line comments showed teachers' anger at the offer and Co-General Secretary Kevin Courtney had to reassure them that the NEU was recommending members  reject the the ballot - which was to be sent out after the meeting.

The pay offer averaging 4.5% itself was poor but worse was it going to be unfunded apart from a Government contribution 0.5% thus creating a financial crisis for many schools, leading to potential redundancies, particularly in support staff.

The Government attempted to impose a condition that the offer would only stand if all four unions involved either recommended acceptance or were neutral, otherwise the offer would be witdrawn. The NEU will recommend rejection.

Clearly the ball is now in the Government's court.

The slides below give some headlines but you can see the full meeting HERE

 


THE GOVERNMENT REJECTED THESE DEMANDS

THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED

THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO SET CONDITIONS REJECTED BY NEU


Vix Lowthion, a high school teacher and Green Party spokesperson on education said this morning:

Could teachers feel any more let down, abandoned, insulted, angry and hated by government than we do this morning? 

We don't do this for them. We do it for our young people. We keep going. 

I can only conclude that the govt despise the entire profession. 

The feeling's mutual.







Monday 20 March 2023

UPDATE: Executive Headteacher gets huge wave of social media support after tweeting that she was going to refuse entry to Ofsted. NEU calls for a pause on all inspections after recent events.

 

UPDATE: Flora Cooper has made it clear that she does not want supporters of her decision to go to the school on Tuesday. This is for the protection of staff and children.

 

Social media was full of comments over the weekend about what many viewed as 'toxic' Ofsted inspections. This followed the sad news about a headteacher who, according to her family, took her own life due to the stress of an anticipated negative Ofsted finding.  Ofsted were criticised for their report on the school which merely noted the death of the headteacher during the inspection. I understand the report was taken down following the criticism.

This morning Flora Cooper, Executive Headteacher of John Rankin School, took to Twitter to announce that she was taking a stand following 'the call' from Ofsted that they were coming in to inspect the school. She announced baldly, 'I've had the call. I've refused entry.'

In subsequent tweets she called for support and it poured in, although of course, not everyone was sympathetic. LINK

The NEU issued the following statement today:

Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, said;  

Given recent events and widespread concerns about leaders’ wellbeing, it’s the height of insensitivity for Ofsted to be going into schools or colleges this week.

Ofsted should pause all its inspections and reflect upon the unmanageable and counter-productive stress they cause for school leaders, and the impact on leaders. This stress is well-documented in literature about Ofsted. That they are phoning leaders this week and initiating inspections speaks to the arrogance of Ofsted and their absolute lack of empathy. The claims by Ofsted to make fair or reliable judgements are not credible and this is part of the immense stress and distress for leaders.

This is an agency that is completely out of touch, and which is making claims and judgements which are unreliable. This can’t go on. Ofsted should be concerned about restoring enhanced professionalism to school leaders and education staff but they are not.  The NEU believes inspections should be paused.    

The Union is campaigning for Ofsted to be replaced. This week a petition to Replace Ofsted will be delivered to the DFE with over 40,000 signatures from across the profession. It’s time we urgently prioritise the welfare and wellbeing of the leaders and staff working so hard with children and young people in their community. We need a system which is supportive, effective and fair.


Monday 11 April 2022

NEU launches petition to replace Ofsted

 

The National Education Union (NEU) today launched a petition calling for the replacement of Ofsted.

The petition says:

Teachers and leaders work under the shadow cast by Ofsted. An unfair and unreliable inspectorate. 

As Ofsted approaches its 30-year anniversary, now is the right time to examine what effect its inspections have on the quality of education that teachers and leaders are able to provide and, in particular, for our most disadvantaged pupils. 

 In 2017, the National Audit Office concluded that: "Ofsted does not know whether its school inspections are having the intended impact: to raise the standards of education and improve the quality of children's and young people's lives." 

Ofsted has never published any research to prove that its inspections accurately reflect the quality of education schools provide. Comprehensive, independent analysis of Ofsted judgements show they discriminate against schools in deprived areas – awarding 'outstanding' grades to four times more secondary schools with better-off pupils than schools with students who are worse off. A major research study showed that, even when schools in deprived areas are making excellent value-added progress, they are still more likely to be given poor Ofsted judgements.

Teachers and leaders know that working in disadvantaged areas is likely to be harmful to their careers because of the unfairness of Ofsted judgements. It is harder to recruit and retain teachers in these schools. Poor children, who most need qualified and experienced teachers if they are to fulfil their potential, are least likely to get them. 

School inspection must be fair. It should be supportive. It should not be, as too many Ofsted inspections are, punitive. 


The stress and unsustainable workload generated by Ofsted is a major factor in the appalling teacher retention rates that blight English education. Nearly 40 per cent of teachers leave the profession within ten years. No education system can improve while it haemorrhages school leaders and teachers. We must create a new approach to school and college evaluation which is effective and fair.

 

We are calling on the Government to:

  • Replace Ofsted with a school accountability system which is supportive, effective and fair.
  • Work with teachers, leaders and other stakeholders to establish a commission to learn how school accountability is done in other high performing education nations.
  • Develop an accountability system which commands the trust and confidence of education staff as well as parents and voters.

 

Both the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats have policy to replace Ofsted in its current form.

Sign the petition HERE

Saturday 12 June 2021

Former Ofsted chief Michael Wilshaw takes over at Jewish Free School following departure of the headteacher & safeguarding concerns

 Sir Michael Wilshaw

Sir Michael Wilshaw, former Chief Inspector at Ofsted (2012-2016), has stepped in as temporary interim executive principal of the Jewish Free School (JFS) in Kenton following the sudden departure of headteacher Mrs Rachel Fink.

Dame Joan McVittie

Sir Michael will be advised by Dame Joan McVittie a former London headteacher, senior Ofsted inspector and an expert in safeguarding.

JFS is tha largest Jewish secondary school in Europe and, although in Brent ,takes pupils from a much wider area.

The Jewish Chronicle reported LINK:

Parents have voiced concern about the situation at the school, highlighting disciplinary and safeguarding issues. Speculation is rife about the findings of a supposedly negative Ofsted inspection last month, which have yet to be published.

The school had been named on the Everyone's Invited website where pupils reported peer-on-peer sexual misconduct. The Daily Telegraph  LINK reported on the tesimonies:

“I was in the lunch queue and he put his hand up my skirt and groped me [and] no one said anything,” one account allegedly about JFS read. Another said it was “normal for boys of any age to grope girls”.

At the time Mrs Fink write to parents about the 'disturbing' testimonies:

There are those who might suggest that it is impossible to verify the truth of these allegations, or that the naming of different schools and universities is inconsistent.

Others will argue that when you read the testimonies it is clear that most of them reference incidents that take place out of school, at parties and on the weekend; that they are nothing to do with school.

My view, both as an educator and as a woman, is that we have a responsibility to have an open and honest discussion and once again partner with students and parents to really understand what is taking place in our community, a microcosm of society, and how do we collectively create change.

Andrew Moss, Chair of Governors said:

We appreciate that changes of this nature cause concern. We have full confidence in the team along with the entire staff body to deliver the education priorties and maintain the Jewish ethos of the school. 

Although JFS is not a local authority school, Brent Council has an overall responsibility for the wellbeing and safeguarding of all children in the borough.

There was much disappointment in 2014 when Ofsted downgraded JFS from 'Good' to 'Requires Improvement' based on the behaviour and safety of pupils and the school's leadership and management. Action taken at the school enabled it to reurn to the 'Good' category in all areas in 2016.

The report on the latest Ofsted inspection has not yet been published.



 

 

 


Sunday 10 December 2017

NEU call on Brent Labour leadership to follow Corbyn's policy on privatisation of education ahead of Village school strike


From the National Education Union in Brent
 
-->
Staff at The Village School in Kingsbury, Brent have voted to take strike action against the proposal to turn the school into an academy, part of a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). Unless the proposal to become a MAT is withdrawn, NEU* staff will strike before Christmas.

John Roche, NEU ATL section Brent Secretary said:
The school passed its last Ofsted in with an ‘Outstanding’ judgement in all categories in October 2016 so clearly there is no educational reason to seek to become an academy. Furthermore, Brent Local Authority has put millions of pounds into this special school and now a state asset, our asset, is proposed to be privatised. Staff ask why is a Labour Authority not up in arms at this attempt to foist a Tory policy on one of their schools?

Lesley Gouldbourne, NEU NUT section Brent Secretary said:
The Government’s academy programme has proved a corrupt shambles that has done nothing to improve education and lacks accountability, in particular with finances. The Wakefield City Academy Trust (WCAT) has collapsed leaving 21 schools in chaos affecting 8500 children. Joining a MAT means all the school’s assets and any surpluses are handed over. A small group of unaccountable, unelected trustees control the finances. I am also finding it hard to understand why a Labour Council is not opposing the privatisation of this jewel in Brent's crown, especially at a time when it is taking other services back in-house. Cllr Butt has not replied to my email about this.

A report on BBC news in Leeds and West Yorkshire stated, “During a Wakefield Council meeting it was claimed that the Trust (WCAT) moved millions of pounds of school reserves into its centralised accounts prior to collapse. Leader Peter Box said he would be talking to the police about his concerns”

Hank Roberts, NEU ATL section London Executive said:
The NEU believes that the Labour Council leadership is not following the democratically established overwhelming majority of Brent Labour Party members that oppose the loss of more Council LA controlled schools to be handed over to be privately run by Trusts. This is clear from the resolutions passed unanimously at Brent LP meetings and the London Region of the LP. Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition to the privatisation of state education has been made clear. Instead, it appears that they are doing the bidding of senior paid Council employees with an agenda.

Thursday 5 October 2017

Action Plan for Brent SEND children services to be approved tonight

The Brent Health and Wellbeing Board will tonight consider a Written Statement of Action following concerns expressed following a joint inspection of the authority's and Brent Clinical Commissioning Group provision for chldren with special educational needs and disabilities. The officer's report states:

-->
Although some aspects of the inspection were very positive, a Written Statement of Action has been requested. Brent Council, Brent CCG and health providers have worked together to address these concerns and respond to them so that children in any setting can get the right health advice and treatment to support their education. The most challenging of these concerns to address is the waiting times issue that has arisen due to wider shortages of specialist NHS staff. Brent CCG has appointed a specialist Designated Clinical Officer to oversee and speed up the programme of health reforms.

The inspectors required the local area to provide a Written Statement of Action in regard to the following concerns:

·      strategic leadership of the CCG in implementing the SEND reforms

·      the fragmented approach to joint commissioning causing gaps in services

·      the lack of opportunity for therapists to respond to draft EHC plans before they are finalised

·      poor access to services for some vulnerable groups; in particular, to audiology, OT and speech and language therapy, limited opportunities for parental involvement when designing and commissioning services. 

The draft Written Statement for  Action can be found HERE.
It has to be submitted by October 23rd
 


Friday 10 March 2017

Ofsted chief: It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

There was a change of tone in today's speech by the new Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman  to the ASCL which I thought was well worth publishing in full for the information of local teachers and parents. Publication does not imply agreement but rather recognition that this is an opportunity to debate wider education issues.

 
I want to start by paying particular tribute to Malcolm Trobe and his stewardship of ASCL in recent months. And I’d also like to congratulate Geoff on his election as General Secretary.

And some other thank yous. One is to my predecessor Sir Michael Wilshaw who, we can all agree, has been a tireless and outspoken advocate for higher standards and improving young people’s life chances. And having seen the number of new challenges he has set himself since stepping down, we can be sure that that zeal will continue for many years to come.

I also want to thank the wider Ofsted team for all it has done in recent years to make an inspectorate so much improved from even just 5 years ago.

The Ofsted I have inherited is far more focused on what works, far more self-critical and reflective, and far more outward facing and engaged with the sectors it inspects, than at any point in its history. It is a privilege to work with this team to carry that forward.

It may be hackneyed, but it still merits repeating, that our education system is only ever be as good as the people who work in it. We know there are very real challenges: funding pressures, changing structures, curriculum and qualification reforms.

But we are lucky enough to have the most talented generation of school and college leaders in our history. Which, by the way, means that we can have, and should aim to have, the best outcomes for pupils in the world.

And I’m delighted that my first major speech as Chief Inspector is to ASCL. For me, ASCL embodies the very best in our education system – self-confident, engaged school leaders, representing a profession determined to control its own destiny. I am looking forward to working with Geoff and your council to continue the good work that ASCL and Ofsted have done together in recent years.

I would particularly like to commend your blueprint, which is a hugely impressive piece of work. It sets out an ambitious vision for the future of education, as well as a challenge for you as school leaders to step forward and take ownership. And I very much hope that vision remains for the foreseeable future.

Getting it right

When it comes to Ofsted, your blueprint highlights the important responsibility that school inspection has to parents and young people in determining the effectiveness of a school. That responsibility means that Ofsted inspections have immense power.

Spending the past 6 months, as I have done, travelling round the country, meeting inspectors, heads, teachers, pupils and parents, I have come to see what that power really means.One of the most gratifying moments was visiting Skinners’ Academy in Tunbridge Wells, led of course by your President Sian Carr.

By pure chance, I was in the school just as they received their outstanding judgement, and I saw first-hand the pride that all the staff felt in seeing their achievements for young people recognised.

 That experience brought home to me just how much our findings matter to those we inspect and how we must never lose sight of that when we make our judgements.

So Ofsted’s power is one that I will use responsibly and intelligently.

Inspection should not be making your job unnecessarily difficult or laborious. Or, worse still, actually diverting you from the real task at hand – our children’s education.

I have no interest in using this role to impose my personal prejudices about how you should run your schools, nor will Ofsted on my watch become a vehicle for promoting the latest educational fashion or fad. And I won’t be pushing you to jump through increasingly convoluted hoops, only to change direction a couple of years down the line.

My interest is solely in ensuring that every child receives what is their fundamental right: a good education. And not only a good education but the right education for that child.

Let me be absolutely clear. My commitment to responsible and intelligent inspection does not mean that I will hold back from exposing places where children are not receiving the proper standard of education or care.

Whether it is pupils struggling to learn in schools where behaviour just isn’t good enough, young people being exposed to extremist views in illegal schools or children left vulnerable in our care system, I will be frank about these failings and, what’s more, I will demand action to tackle them.

Anyone who assumes that the high value I place on evidence and data means that I am reluctant to speak truth to power will find themselves mistaken. In fact, it is the use of robust evidence and data that gives Ofsted the authority to challenge, on behalf of the minority of children who are being let down.

Inspection will never be painless, and a regulator will never be loved by those it regulates – nor should it be. We must, though, make sure we are respected and use evidence responsibly and intelligently in everything we do.

Improving inspection

But, much as we focus on rigour and evidence, inspection will always be to some degree an art as well as a science. It won’t ever be flawless.

At Ofsted, we are lucky to have a terrific team of inspectors: Her Majesty’s Inspectors and also many Ofsted Inspectors drawn from your own ranks.But that doesn’t mean that inspection is a perfect tool.

That is why we are doing more work to refine our processes, to get better, to use research and evidence so that our inspections are as valid and reliable as they can be.

The reliability study we published earlier this week is an encouraging start. As you may well have read, it found that inspectors, working independently but in parallel, agreed on the outcome of a short inspection in 22 cases out of 24.

This is about as good as we could have hoped for. It was pleasing to see this recognised by a number of influential figures, including Professor Rob Coe.

But it is only the first step, and I want to go further in exploring inspection reliability, what we should be aiming for, and how we can improve it.

At the same time, we will look at the validity of inspection. By that, I mean whether inspection is measuring what it is intended to measure, and coming to the right conclusions.

But I need to set expectations here: this is the basis of a continuing programme of work; not one quick hit.

Adding value

One of the most important questions for us is how we make sure we at Ofsted add value. We all know that we live in a world of almost limitless school data and extensive performance measures.

By and large, I think that data is a good thing, not just in providing information about a school’s performance, but also in helping us all to evaluate what works and what doesn’t – and, more broadly, to improve the practice of education.

But as powerful a tool as data is, it also has its limitations. And they are limitations that we do recognise. That is why our inspections are informed by data, but not driven by them.

It is dispiriting to see some commentators still insisting that data is all we care about.

Just a few weeks ago, one headteacher made that very claim in the Observer, despite the fact we recently judged his school to be outstanding when, as yet, it has no results at all!

I cannot stress enough that data is the starting point for our inspections, not the destination.
In fact, it is mostly by looking beyond the data that Ofsted can and should add value, providing a rounded picture of how well a school is doing.

It is that human and, dare I say it, subjective element of our inspections that makes them useful. And for that reason, I am pleased to say that our inspectors are, for now at least, one group who have nothing to fear from automation!

But on a more serious note, we are well aware that the challenge of interpreting data wisely, and placing it in context, is even more important when the main external exams are changing.

For example, we know that it is impossible for schools to predict this year’s student outcomes in the new English and maths GCSEs with any accuracy. That is why Sean Harford, our National Director of Education, has written to inspectors to ask that they do not request predictions from schools: in fact he described it as ‘a mug’s game’.

Instead, inspectors should be looking at whether schools know if pupils are making the progress they should, and taking action where they are not.

At the same time, we said that we would provide both general and school-specific guidance to inspectors from September, about what can and cannot be inferred from this summer’s results. I hope this will provide reassurance that your schools are being fairly judged in the context of a changing qualification system.

A quality curriculum

One of the areas where data can only tell us so much is in assessing the quality of a school’s curriculum.

I suspect no one here will disagree with the vital importance of a curriculum which is broad, rich and deep. It matters so much for children, and particularly for disadvantaged children, who are less likely to have the gaps filled in at home.

As recent research from Dr Cristina Iannelli has shown, differences in the secondary school curriculum contribute significantly more in reproducing social inequalities than does school type. Or, as she puts it:
In the British education systems subject choices were and are still crucial for gaining access to prestigious universities and for entering professional jobs… We should not overlook the importance of subject choices in secondary school for creating opportunities for social mobility.
And our inspectors understand this. Only this week I spoke to an HMI who explained how he’d recently come to judge outcomes in a school to be outstanding. Published progress data was broadly average. But he recognised that the leadership had stuck to its guns, continued to insist on modern foreign languages for all pupils, including in its sixth form, and provided an exceptional curriculum. Those ‘average progress points’ were hard won by a courageous leadership team, who, by the way, were also judged outstanding as a result.

Given the importance of the curriculum, it’s surprising just how little attention is paid by our accountability system to exactly what it is pupils are learning in schools, particularly as we have been through a period of significant curriculum upheaval.

Certainly, we have good measures of pupil attainment at 16 and 18. And new measures, such as Progress 8, go much further than their predecessors in painting a fuller picture of pupils’ learning. But even they take us only so far.

The same is true of Ofsted inspections. While assessment forms a large part of the teaching and learning judgement, the curriculum does not.

The taught curriculum is in fact just one among 18 matters for consideration in reaching the leadership and management judgement, making it somewhat of a needle in a haystack.

I believe that lack of focus has had very real consequences.

I have heard from many of you about the conflict between your desire to give children the right education and the pressure to maintain your league table position.

And we all know how the corrosive pattern can emerge. However much you want to resist narrowing your curriculum or teaching to the test, when you see the school down the road doing it, and getting the league table pay off, you may feel you have no choice but to follow suit.

One of the more dispiriting moments in my 15 years of visiting schools was a particular Year 11 history lesson. First, pupils did a practice exam question, then they had to compare their own work to the model answer for their target grade, to see what they should be adding in. So if you had a C grade target, you were actively discouraged from aiming any higher. For me, the whole lesson was a clear example of where the exam had come to replace the education, rather than merely measuring it.

More generally, there’s a telling contrast in the schools I visit. In some, people want to talk purely about the result numbers and how they achieve them, whereas in others, they want to talk about the actual substance of the education they are giving.

And we all know that the wrong kind of focus on results can be damaging.

As Sean wrote in his inspection update, we know that there are some schools that are narrowing the curriculum, using qualifications inappropriately, and moving out pupils who would drag down results. That is nothing short of a scandal where it happens. Childhood isn’t deferrable: young people get one opportunity to learn in school and we owe it to them make sure they all get an education that is broad, rich and deep.

As I have said many times before, there is more to a good education than league tables. Vitally important though a school’s examination results are, we must not allow curricula to be driven just by SATs, GCSEs and A levels. It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

So I am determined to make sure that the curriculum receives the proper focus it deserves.
And that is why I’m announcing today that I have chosen the curriculum to be the focus of the first big thematic Ofsted review of my tenure. From early years, through to primary, secondary, sixth form and FE colleges, this will explore the real substance of education.

We will look at how schools are interpreting the national curriculum or using their academy freedoms to build new curricula of their own and what this means for children’s school experience. We will look at what makes a really good curriculum. And we will also look at the problems, such as curriculum narrowing, and what we can do to tackle them.

What we will not be doing is trying to unpick the national curriculum. Indeed, I suspect I would be jeered off the stage if I were to suggest yet more upheaval.

But I do want this review to provide key insights into some of the most important policy debates of the day. How do we best promote social mobility? How do we make sure that every child has the best possible start in life? And can the accountability system play a part in encouraging the development of a rich curriculum, rather than incentivising gaming?

I do hope that many of you will be able to play a part in this review and share your experiences so that others can learn from your example. You are the experts and you understand these issues better than anyone. Everything we know is informed by the work that you do, and that’s the way that it should be.

Tackling workload

And there is another thing I’d like to talk about today, and that’s workload. I spoke earlier about the importance of Ofsted acting responsibly. We are not naïve about the impact that our inspections have on workload. So we will do our bit to make sure your time is spent where it matters most.

Ofsted does have a track record of listening and acting on the feedback we receive from the profession. That’s why we have brought all school inspection in-house and ended the third-party contracts.

We’ve brought many more serving leaders – including people in this room – onto our inspection teams. Almost half of inspections include serving practitioners, and over a third of inspector days on the ground are from practitioners, not HMI. So we are already much closer to a peer review system than many people realise.

We’ve also introduced a more proportionate inspection model for good schools, so as to focus more sharply on schools that are struggling.

Just as importantly, we have worked hard, especially over the past 2 years, to dispel many of the common staffroom myths about what Ofsted requires or expects when it comes to things like teaching styles, lesson planning, and marking.

Although this is strictly anecdotal, we are seeing more school leaders on social media and elsewhere reflecting positively on their recent inspection experience and how it felt like a marked departure from the past.

Of course there is more to do: more myth-busting work, more inspector training and more critical self-evaluation.

But when it comes to workload, Ofsted can only go so far in mitigating the impact of inspection. As my predecessor pointed out, you as school leaders need to justify your policies on marking, lesson planning and teacher evaluation on their own merits, rather than erroneously citing Ofsted ‘expectations’.

This has to be a 2-way relationship. When we bust myths, we need you, as school leaders, to consign them to history.

Ofsted inspections should not be a performance that schools spend hours rehearsing. Our inspectors are getting better at evaluating whether what we see on inspection is a true reflection of the everyday life of a school.

And no matter what so-called ‘consultants’ are selling, when school finances are under pressure and workloads are high, running mocksteds is an unacceptable waste of staff time and scarce pupil funding.

All of us have a role to play in tackling that destructive cycle which means the teaching profession is bleeding talent, and losing the brightest and the best.

We know from a DfE study released last month that teachers are working unsustainable hours, and we also know from the international TALIS surveys that it isn’t because they’re spending more time teaching than their peers abroad.

At 20 hours a week, teaching time is close to the international average. Instead, teachers in England spend significantly more time on planning, marking and administration, where I know unnecessary preparation for inspection plays a major part.

So Ofsted is committed to supporting the DfE in its workload challenge, and I do hope that you will all be displaying the workload poster and pamphlet released last month. Among other things, this clarifies what Ofsted does and does not want to see.

I am not naïve enough to believe that a poster alone will solve the problem, but it should certainly help.

Another thing we know will help with workload is greater clarity between different actors in the system. As Malcolm Trobe put it in a letter to me earlier this week,
schools would benefit from greater clarity around the roles, responsibilities and relationships between Ofsted and RSCs in particular.
There is nothing inevitable about rising teacher workload, and working together we can tackle it.

Conclusion

So I’d like to leave you with these parting thoughts.

My ambition as Chief Inspector is to make sure Ofsted is regarded as a force for good. I want us to highlight outstanding practice, recognise where leadership and management is performing well in challenging circumstances, and provide the feedback that schools which are less than good need to improve.

But Ofsted judgements aren’t ends in themselves. Despite many years in education regulation, I still believe the old adage that weighing the pig isn’t what makes it fatter.

When I was at Ofqual, I consistently said that qualifications were the mirror of education, not the education itself. And exactly the same applies to Ofsted judgements: they are a reflection of school quality, but they should never become the definition of quality.

All too often Ofsted Chief Inspectors are portrayed as the champions of rigour, standards and quality in schools. But the truth is I’m not a medieval knight in armour, and nor do I aspire to be one.
That’s because it is you and your staff who are the real champions of standards. You are the ones who work tirelessly day in, day out, at evenings and weekends, so that your pupils get an excellent education. Yes, it’s my job to say how well schools are performing, but the far harder job of delivering for young people is yours.

And we need to attract even more talented people into the profession, grow them into successful leaders and support them to take on new challenges.

I want Ofsted to play its part in what your blueprint so perfectly describes as
a move away from prescription to a profession-led system that is evidence-informed, innovative and ethical.
Within such a system, inspection can have a powerful role as a force for improvement and a judge of education quality. Realising that potential is the challenge I have set myself, and I look forward to working with all of you to make it a reality.