An open letter to Amanda Spielman, the government’s favoured candidiate to replace Sir Michael Wilshaw as chief inspector of schools and children’s services:

Dear Amanda,

Many congratulations on your appointment as the government’s recommended candidate to be Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of schools and children’s services (HMCI). In this role you have the potential to exercise influence for good on the lives of millions of young people and, although your previous roles have given you many opportunities, nothing can quite prepare you for the combination of influence, power and pressure that you will encounter as HMCI.

This letter is merely a coda to the book that I will post to you, as I have done to all your recent predecessors. It was published in 1998, which seems almost a lifetime away in the education world, but the message of its subtitle remains as pertinent today as it has been since the inspectorate was founded in 1839. The first chapter of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools since 1944: standard bearers or turbulent priests? tells the story of the 19th-century inspectors, the best of whom were beacons of light in the dark world of the Revised Code, and the book looks in detail at the work of their 20th-century successors.

Intelligent accountability

The research for the book earned me a PhD but, more importantly, it reinforced for me the importance of values-led educational leadership and the need for intelligent accountability of the work of schools. As I traced the story from the first inspectors, Revd John Allen (the inspector of church schools) and Hugh Seymour Tremenheere (non-church schools), through the great Joshua Fitch and Matthew Arnold, to the first Senior Chief Inspector, Revd TW Sharpe, Martin Roseveare as SCI in the 1940s, to the indomitable Sheila Browne and Eric Bolton, I observed the waxing and waning of the inspectorate, with the periods of its greatest influence being those when it reported without fear or favour on the work of individual schools  and on the effect of government policy.

Your immediate predecessor, Sir Michael Wilshaw, had a formidable track record as a headteacher, but his appointment (article free to subscribers) was greeted with considerable scepticism, such was the enthusiasm of the secretary state, Michael Gove, to have as head of Ofsted someone whom he perceived to be of like mind. It is well documented that the two men did not always see eye to eye and had some famous rows, as Sir Michael grew into the role and became as critical of ineffective government policies as he was of poor quality education in some schools.

Never forget that you are HMCI; you are not the secretary of state’s nor the profession’s. Like all the great chief inspectors, whose stories are told in my book, you must report without fear or favour both on the quality of education in each school and on the effect of government policies. You must do this on the basis of evidence alone, of which you possess more than anyone else in the education world in England. 

Stimulus to improvement

One of your predecessors as HMCI was well known for his polemic speeches and he had a good deal of influence in his day, but he rarely spoke on the basis of the evidence from the thousands of school inspections that were taking place at the time and so his views had no more authenticity than mine or anyone else’s. Other chief inspectors, however, have analysed the evidence, drawn conclusions from it and made telling contributions that stimulated teachers, school leaders and government ministers to improve the quality of their work.

The first Letter of Instructions to Inspectors in 1840 stated that: “It is of the utmost consequence you should bear in mind that this inspection is not intended as a means of exercising control, but of affording assistance; that it is not to be regarded as operating for the restraint of local efforts, but for their encouragement; and that its chief objects will not be attained without the cooperation of the school committees; the inspector having no power to interfere, and not being instructed to offer any advice or information except where it is invited.”

In his biography of Matthew Arnold, fellow HMI Joshua Fitch reflected that “the inspector’s first duty is to verify the conditions on which public aid is offered to schools and to assure the department that the nation is obtaining a good equivalent for its outlay. But this is not the whole. He is called upon to visit schools of very different types, to observe the merits and demerits of each…and to leave behind him at every school some stimulus to improvement.”

You have a great deal of independence over how you carry out this work. In recent years, there has been a regrettable tendency to change the inspection framework on an annual basis, so that schools see goalposts moving and feel the need to react in a way that, taken together with the constant changes of government education policy, has contributed to a counterproductive destabilisation of the system. 

Too data-driven

I am sure you will want to make changes to the inspection framework. My advice is to take your time over it, get it right and then stick with it. Inspections have improved markedly in the last couple of years, but they are still far too data-driven. To overcome this and make the inspection experience more meaningful for schools, there are just two questions to which inspectors need to find the answer when they visit a school: “Are the pupils receiving a high quality education?” And “Does the school have the capacity to improve?” The data on attainment and attendance, and compliance issues such as safeguarding, can be dealt with separately. Inspections should be data-informed, but not data-driven.

You will take office at a time when the school system is, to use the language of inspection, good with outstanding features, but with patches that require improvement, and a government department that, if you were given the power to inspect its performance, you would probably put in special measures. You will doubtless be pleased that that is not a judgement that you will be asked to make. But you will, I hope, report without fear or favour on the effect of its curriculum changes, its assessment revolution, its new accountability measures, and its emphasis on structural change, which many well-informed people believe to be not grounded in evidence.

As Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, you are part of a 177-year long tradition of independent reporting on the working of education in England. I know that you will be a standard bearer. I hope that you will be a turbulent priest too.

With every good wish, 

John

John Dunford is chair of Whole Education and was formerly a secondary headteacher, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders and national pupil premium champion. He tweets as @johndunford

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook