Ofsted’s draft inspection framework allows too little room for critical thinking, a universities leader has warned.
James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (Ucet), said he was concerned the wording in the draft Ofsted inspection framework - which he referred to in conjunction with the accompanying handbook - implied that research has to be approached in “an uncritical way”.
Related: Ofsted to fail ITT providers over non-phonics reading
Draft handbook: Ofsted’s new focus on curriculum and behaviour in ITT
Research: ‘Little or no evidence’ that phonics improves reading
Last month it emerged that Ofsted’s new inspection handbook, currently out for consultation, states that primary initial teacher training (ITT) providers will be rated “inadequate” for “quality of education and training” if they teach any reading methods other than systematic synthetic phonics.
Speaking today at a Westminster Education Forum on initial teacher training, Mr Noble-Rogers criticised the watchdog’s document - arguing that references to phonics within the handbook “contradict each other”.
For example, at one point they imply that alternative methods to systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) should only be taught if they are backed up by the “most up-to-date evidence”, and separately they prescribe that the SSP method should be taught exclusively.
He said: “Everyone agrees that SSP must be covered in ITE programmes, but the references in the ITE inspection framework - firstly, they…contradict each other, but also they are not appropriate for teacher education programmes.”
He added: “Universities are more than capable of deciding what the most up to date evidence is.”
Mr Noble-Rogers said the challenge now was “to ensure - and this is important - that Ofsted take(s) a measured approach to compliance.”
He added: “I do have concerns that some of the wording in the Ofsted ITE inspection framework - and it is only a draft, and it will change - doesn’t sit easily with providers being able to critique the research that underpins the ITT content framework sufficiently.
“There are references in the inspection framework which could be taken to imply that the bibliography attached to the ITE content framework, which isn’t part of the framework itself, has to be covered in an uncritical way.”
He argued that providers should be able to consult “alternative sources of research...and critique things like metacognition”.
“That is essential for teacher education programmes, and that is a point we will be making very strongly in our response to the Ofsted consultation,” he added.
An Ofsted spokesperson responded: “We would encourage anyone with thoughts on the ITE consultation to engage with the process. Thoughts gathered through the consultation process will be thoroughly considered.”
