Ofsted part 9: A tough reality of the job.

When there is substantial failure, as there will sometimes be in public services no matter how hard we try, there is always great personal pain which is most effectively dealt with if somebody carries the can by being prepared to lose their job.  When individual inspectors defend their jobs too actively when there has clearly been substantial failure on their watch a regulator loses credibility.

For all sorts of reasons, schools have become overly deferential to the process and conclusions of inspection to the extent where judgements of doubtful validity with potentially very negative consequences are not properly challenged.  We need processes which expect there may be challenges to potentially contentious judgements and plan to allow such challenges to be constructive processes of  growth in understanding for both the school and the inspector.

In essence I am saying here that the recruitment process for the inspectorate should actively seek out those who would not be afraid to leave their jobs should that appear to be the right thing to do.  There are plenty of such people in education and I have known many who have become inspectors.  But sadly they seem too often to rapidly leave inspection and there is little evidence of their presence among those who define policy direction at Ofsted.

Ofsted should only employ people in core roles who can command the personal and professional respect and trust of our most dedicated and able headteachers.  If that trust breaks down and cannot be properly restored within a reasonable time the inspector be removed, preferable of their own volition.  In other words they should be accountable to the very best in education rather than to themselves.

Schools should only employ headteachers who can command the personal and professional respect and trust of their most dedicated and able teachers.  If that trust breaks down and cannot be properly restored within a reasonable time the headteacher should leave and our inspectors should be there to help in that process if necessary.  At present too often it is the case that a school falls to rock bottom at which point the staff and governors organise the removal of the head.  Then Ofsted turn up and hang around for the next couple of years in order to take the credit for the improvement the staff then bring about.

It's not blooming rocket science.  Is is?  Let's strip out all those processes of inspection which protect inspectors who are not up to the job and which are not needed by those who are and replace them with structures used by credible regulators.

Ofsted part 8: How could a purpose-led inspectorate effectively report on the quality of provision?

A purpose-led inspectorate of the type described here could report on the extent to which schools are reaching the high floor standard specified.

It could also provide detailed qualitative reports on innovative and exemplary practice, which is currently often barely acknowledged. To have access to such published information would be of great benefit to many stakeholders in education.

Where there is a clear argument for their being specific high standards to which schools could or should aspire, these could be provided by other agencies and quality assured and reported on by an education inspectorate.

Pages with lists of numbers would be lost.  Academic and political reviews of practices in inspection and regulation conclude that this would be beneficial to the quality of the services being provided by the organisations being inspected.

Ofsted part 7: How could a purpose-led inspectorate effectively drive quality improvement?

By mandating, as part of the minimum standards criteria (discussed in parts 5 and 6) that schools participate in a quality assured improvement programs.

You'd neeed someone exceptionally bright (highly experienced in education with at least an MEd and a recent MBA as well) organising the regulation of the frameworks for such programs at the inspectorate.

They'd need a small team of people who worked to quality assure improvement programs (individual schools might be quality assured or bodies which groups of schools worked with may be).

The at last schools would have the freedom to select who they worked with to mentor them on quality improvement.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have PRUs being mentored by bodies with specialist expertise in running PRUs for example?

Ofsted part 6: How could a purpose-led inspectorate effectively identify and eliminate unacceptable practice? (part 2)

In part 5 of this section of my blog I pointed out that there could be considered to be two contexts in which a purpose-led inspectorate may need to intervene to protect against unacceptable standards.

The first (where specific issues have arisen which do not raise concerns about the leadership at the school) I considered in part 5.   In this section I shall consider:

What happens in cases where there is concern regarding the leadership at a school?

One of the most important ways in which our children can be protected from unacceptable standards in education is by planning to ensure that headteachers who are not performing well are replaced.

Dealing with this issue is extremely difficult and complex, as the same headteacher behaviour may be productive at one school and destructive at another.

It is also natural that the style of leadership exhibited by a headteacher and the decisions they make will not suit all parties at all times.  Such alienated parties may raise concerns which are sincere, but when should they be deemed to require the replacement of the head and when should the head be endorsed despite the concerns raised?

Despite these very difficult issues, the replacement of failing headteachers should be one of the functions of a purpose-led education inspectorate if one of its purposes is to protect against unsatisfactory standards in education.

It is therefore absolutely essentials that inspectors are exceptionally credible to the member of the school community they are inspecting.  They should be credible headteachers with substantial experience which is relevant to the type of school they are inspecting.  Inspection should be a natural options for career progressions for a well reputed headteacher who is seeking to move from full time work to part time work in the later stages of their career.

Consideration of the issues here leads to the conclusion that there will be instances where it is necessary for inspectors to monitor and mentor schools over a period of time.  Questions also arise as to who would be responsible for supporting an incoming replacement head given the current uncertainty regarding the provision of local authorities.



In part 7 of this section of my blog I will consider how a purpose-led education inspectorate body could deliver on the purpose of:
      2.   Ensuring that schools are working in a professional way to improve the quality of their provision
In part 8 I will consider how the purpose of:

3.   Reporting on what is going on in schools / the quality of provision.

Ofsted part 5: How could a purpose-led inspectorate effectively identify and eliminate unacceptable practice?

It is right and proper that all stakeholders in education should have the right to be consulted regarding what they consider to be unacceptable practice. 

Although there will be a significant amount of contextual variation in standards set (what is unacceptable in some circumstances is acceptable in others), nonetheless it is right that there should be processes where the boundaries between unacceptable and acceptable practice are defined and any possible exemptions from these boundaries are agreed.

Such a purpose for an educational inspectorate would lead to there being two ways in which a school may raise concerns regarding unacceptable practice.  The first is if it is failing to meet one or more of the standards laid down.  The second is if there is concern regarding the quality of the leadership of the headteacher at the school.  I will discuss the first issue in this post and the second issue in the next.

When schools fail to meet particular standards

Example 1: child protection
Say for example an inspector questions a teacher at a school his is inspecting about child protection issues and find that that teacher doesn't really understand the topic and doesn't know who the child protection officer at their school is.  That inspector might then divert from his original plans in order to take the time to ascertain whether this is a significant issues among staff at the school or not.  If he finds other teachers are properly aware of procedures he is likely to conclude it is not.  However if he find this is a systemic issue at the school he may will raise it with the headteacher.  The headteacher may already have in place a coherent plan for a training update for staff or he may, perhaps, deny the problem or create a defence of there being no need for individual awareness as staff would ask if an issue arose.  The inspector will be well placed to rebut either denial (by taking the headteacher with him while he interviews more staff) or deflection (because he has clear standards by which he is assessing staff awareness).

The inspection report produced will contain a statement of the issue, the proposed plan of action which the inspector should agree with the head and intended consequences (e.g. an unannounced re-inspection on this issue to take place in 3-9 months). There may also be a charge for the school associated with this which might typically be to cover the cost of that re-inspection.   

Of course the inspector would be assessing the headteacher during this interaction.  Do they know their school well?  Are they behaving in an appropriately professional and competent way?  If the behaviour of the head raises concern they will investigate further (to be covered in the next blog post).

Example 2: school security.
Supposing an inspector discovers that a school is failing to comply with particular standards of school security and that the root cause of that failure to comply lies with their being a public right of way through the school grounds, a circumstance not considered when those standards were drawn up.

There is likely to be a lengthy discussion between the inspector and the headteacher about this issue.  Between them they may come up with some improvements which could be made despite this issue.  The headteacher may talk about the enormous cost and possibly impenetrable public issues associated with changing the right of way.  The headteacher may suggest that change is neither necessary nor right for his community. 

In this case the inspectors report may contain a section which discusses this issue.  It may describe changes agreed and mandate the school to carry out a consultation and a cost/funding stream analysis of possible ways forward within the normal inspection cycle.  This would allow time for that inspector to report back to the bodies which set these standards, carefully describing the issues and exploring the possibility of specific exemptions/modifications to the criteria being developed for schools with public rights of way through their grounds.  This issue would then be revisited during the next normal inspection.  There may also be communication between the inspector and the headteacher in the meantime to help that inspector best inform the mandating bodies regarding the issues of public rights of way.

In essence I am saying that there should be professional/human interaction regarding the consequences of failures found.  Inspectors should be competent and properly empowered by their organisational structure to behave in this way.

Ofsted Part 4: What principles would underpin the actions of a purpose-led education inspectorate?

Firstly the purposes of inspection would be clearly visible at all times.

These may be:

1.    The identification and elimination of unacceptable practice

2.    Ensuring that schools are working in a professional way to improve the quality of their provision

3.    Reporting on what is going on in schools/the quality of provision.

Secondly, not only the law which explicitly applies to Ofsted:

 “regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent;”

but the principles behind this law would be embodied in the behaviour of inspectors and in the procedures they follow.

Thirdly, processes which generate spurious results or results which are not robustly valid would be eliminated.

Fourthly, there would be substantial feedback loops whereby conclusions both could and would be challenged according the now visible purposes of inspection.

Fifthly, and perhaps most importantly, where practice of concern was identified interventions would be of the minimum level needed to address them in ways which were appropriate to the institution being inspected.

                                                    

I understand more detail is needed to bring this to life and I will attempt to provide more of that detail in the posts which will follow.  Please don’t hesitate to raise issues and post questions using the comment facility available here.

Ofsted Part 3: Cultures of inspection (Process-led v purpose-led)

My journey into understanding why Ofsted is as it is has taken me deeply into the history of inspection in education and has also taken me beyond education into past and present cultures and process of inspection and regulation across many disciplines.

This posts attempts to summarise a key emerging theme which is the difference between process-led and purpose-led inspection

Process-led inspection occurs when regulators establish processes and procedures and the following of these processes becomes the main function of inspection.  

The culture which surrounds this is one where inspectors believe (often correctly) that by following those processes to the letter they can exhonerate themselves from any blame associated with problems arising at the organisations they inspect. 

There is an expectation that inspection processes will identify problems and that the methods for resolving those problems will be as clearly defined at the processes which have been followed have been.

In reality, the processes and consequences which have been laid down quickly age and were probably never appropriate for all circumstances in the first place so there is a poor fit between the outcomes of inspection and the organisations to which those processes are applied.

Purpose-led inspection occurs when the purposes for which regulators exist are clearly defined and the processes employed evolve to fit those purposes.

Questions asked and observation strategies may start from a standard process but will rapidly deviate from this so that the inspector can analyse and understand the situation being inspected. 

Rather judging the behaviour of the organisation being inspected according to abstract criteria, it is judged according to whether or not its behaviour is in accordance with its journey forward given where it currently is and its contexts.

Consequences of negative judgements fit the purpose of the identifying and resolving these issues effectively and efficiently.

It’s a human sign that there will be individual inspectors who will gravitate towards process-led inspection.  Politicians may either implicitly or explicitly demand it.  But it is essential that the directors of a regulatory body work exceptionally hard to ensure that that body is and remains purpose led and that the procedures it employs will support inspectors in delivering on that purpose.

The extent to which Ofsted has failed in this respect is extreme and the consequences of this failure have been devastating for staff in English education.  The duty for measuring the extent of this failure lies with Ofsted who have to justify, on balance, any deviation from its obligation the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (2006). I see no evidence that they are even aware of this duty.   

To be continued….