There’s no question about it: Ofsted attracts strong views from across the sector. Some see the role of chief inspector as a poisoned chalice and “the worst job in the world”, while others view it as the ultimate power base in education.
Whichever camp you are in, most agree that a regulator of some form is essential within the system. But, quite rightly, debate over the past fortnight has centred on the question of Ofsted’s impact on staff wellbeing in schools and whether the stakes have simply become too high.
Time and time again, Ofsted’s leaders have used their platform as chief inspector to drive agendas: Sir Michael Wilshaw’s drive on standards, Amanda Spielman’s drive on the curriculum. But against this backdrop, where will Ofsted’s next boss take us?
With applications now being submitted to succeed Ms Spielman as chief inspector, here are a few thoughts from the front line that potential candidates might want to mull over during the Easter holiday.
Changes the next Ofsted chief should make
1. Let the school know when you let the inspectors know
Ofsted schedules an inspection well in advance, booking inspectors on to the job. Why not contact the school at this point? Remove the trauma and the shock of the inhumane afternoon before call or, worse, the no-notice “I am in the car park” call. What is the worst that could happen? The school gets better?
2. Keep the inspection fluid
Inspectors point out that judgements are subject to change and review, and that the inspection remains open until the report is published. Most issues that an inspection team raise can be fixed quickly. Rather than publishing what was found on the day, how about publishing a report that gives the school some time to sort any issues out?
For full transparency, the report could say that issues were raised and subsequently addressed, but we would avoid the inspection judgement being a snapshot in time and it would show the big picture. It would also show the leadership’s ability to take action at pace and provide reassurance to parents that they are “on it”.
3. Keep judgements to best fit, but after the report include a “management letter”
A management letter could include details of the maths lesson that wasn’t as strong or the subject area that needed more time, for example. It would avoid shaming teachers and leaders publicly, and it would mean that inspectors are able to contribute much more in the improvement conversation. There’s real potential here to lower the personal stakes.
4. Create a “national service” obligation for headteachers and trust leaders
Having heads and trust leaders seconded to Ofsted from the system would ensure that the quality of inspectors remains high and is not compromised. A greater interaction between the inspectorate and the system would only help to break down barriers. Most trust leaders have been HMI or Ofsted-trained, and the inspectorate is weaker as a result of their move back into schools. Reciprocity here might allay the fears of many sceptics.
5. Do more Section 8s: smaller, lower-stakes inspections with HMI
The Section 5 “army” of inspectors does not necessarily provide more insight or a stronger evidence base on which to make judgements or recommendations. HMI enjoy Section 8 as they can apply the framework more flexibly, work more closely with the headteacher and are not tied up with managing a large team.
6. Ensure inspection is conducted by experts
Currently we have former secondary PE teachers ripping apart a school’s history GCSE based on a half-day course at Ofsted HQ (and vice versa). We’re up in arms about non-specialists teaching at A level, so why do we accept non-specialists inspecting areas that they are not expert in? Especially when the stakes are so high. It clearly doesn’t lead to quality subject “deep dives” or the useful feedback that can be achieved by the deep thinking of subject specialists.
Of course, non-subject experts can evaluate teaching and outcomes but for them to get into curriculum sequencing and the content decisions of subject specialists feels contrived.
7. Renegotiate the contract with the DfE
We are lobbying the wrong body, often, when it comes to inspection. Ofsted is contracted for a set number of inspections per year and this may drive perverse incentives - for instance, lowering the bar on recruitment to meet inspector numbers, and rushing through more inspections to meet targets.
8. Enhance the post-inspection evaluation
Rebalance the power ratio between inspectors and school leaders by having a more detailed review of inspection activity and conduct. This should be used to performance-manage inspectors. Inspection without fear or favour is essential, but inspectors must be held more accountable for the quality of their work, evidence and the manner in which they conduct the inspection.
Just as a school curriculum is only as strong as the teachers delivering it, the inspection framework is only as strong as the inspectors applying it. This would allow us to weed out rogue or weak inspectors much more quickly.
9. Provide more transparency in the complaints process
Lack of transparency in the complaints process is a failure of governance, which is deeply concerning to the system. Having had 17 inspections in the past year or so, these are the sorts of things that would certainly improve my experience and confidence in the process.
Let’s hope the new HMCI leans into the challenges that Ofsted faces and sees this as an opportunity to improve, building a stronger, fairer and better regime that we can all subscribe to.
Tom Campbell is the CEO of E-ACT multi-academy trust
