Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman has defended the watchdog’s subject research reviews and said they are used “extensively” by schools to develop their curriculum.
Her comments come amid controversy over the reviews, with some subject associations challenging their findings and even calling for the “distorted” reports to be withdrawn.
Ms Spielman was questioned about the watchdog’s approach to curriculum after giving a speech to Oxford University’s education department on the use of research in education policy.
Since launching its Education Inspection Framework (EIF), which has an increased emphasis on subject curriculum, the watchdog has also published a series of research literature reviews.
Ms Spielman said the research reviews have been downloaded “hundreds of thousands of times” and are being used by schools extensively to help shape their curriculum.
One academic submitted an online question about whether “allegations of distortion [and] misrepresentation” in Ofsted’s curriculum reviews ”throw the neutrality of the frameworks and their application into doubt”.
In a general defence of the reviews, Ms Spielman responded: “In a couple of subject reviews where there was a particularly high degree of contention there were some really odd things being pushed around - where misinterpretation of our referencing conventions had made it look like we’ve used evidence to support assertions that didn’t match.
“I think we have responded to all of those and showed clearly that this is all grounded. I think this is one of those cases where it is more about contention within a subject community.”
There has been controversy surrounding Ofsted’s research reviews including academics questioning the “appropriateness of a regulatory body engaging in research synthesis for arguably political and/or ideological ends”.
Last year, the Association of Mathematics Education Teachers complained about Ofsted’s maths research review and challenged the research base used, while the English and Media Centre charity called for the English review to be withdrawn.
Ofsted’s old framework ‘would not have worked’ during Covid pandemic
Ofsted’s chief inspector also told the audience that its previous inspection framework would not have been able to adapt to the Covid pandemic and a new temporary inspection model would have been needed.
She outlined how Ofsted carried out research and school visits from September 2020 while routine inspection was paused.
She said the inspectorate was one of the few bodies during early research on education during Covid and that there had been international interest in its work.
Ms Spielman added: “It’s worth noting that the flexibility designed into EIF allowed us to do this within the existing framework. The previous framework would not have been able to adapt in the same way.
“We would have needed a new temporary framework, something that professionals in the sector clearly told us they did not want.”
NTP ‘needs to have a big impact to justify its cost’
The chief inspector described the government’s National Tutoring Programme (NTP) as an expensive intervention and said that it “needed to have a big enough impact to justify its cost”.
However, she also warned that measuring this will be challenging.
Ofsted has been evaluating the use of tutoring in schools - looking at how well tuition has been integrated into pupils’ core education.
Ms Spielman said the second phase of its research would look at how schools are adapting and applying the programme after a year of experience.
She said: “There are difficulties with assessing impact; getting a handle on the effectiveness of tutoring at the level of the individual child is always going to be problematic.
“How do you attribute progress? As between classroom teaching and tutoring? It may be possible where tutoring is very targeted at specific topics or areas of the curriculum. But expectations here do need to be realistic.”
Spielman warns against teachers assuming mental health role on behaviour
Ms Spielman warned against teachers taking on the role of mental health professionals and assuming they can make “quasi-clinical judgements” about pupils.
During a question and answer session, she was told by academics that some schools wanted to adopt trauma-informed practices but were concerned that Ofsted would mark them down because inspectors would not support approaches on behaviour “not in line with Tom Bennett” - the government’s lead behaviour adviser.
Ms Spielman dismissed the idea that Ofsted would downgrade schools for this.
However, she added: “I would also say a word of caution that there are many risks in people taking themselves into the space of beings of mental health professionals in the absence of the right professional knowledge.
“I do think it’s important that teachers understand their professional expertise and don’t slide into assuming that that makes them competent to make quasi-clinical judgments.”
She also told her audience she believed the sector would benefit from more research into behaviour and this was something Ofsted was planning.
