Ofsted needs to be abolished (Trigger warning)

My bad :(

Sorry for double posting

Hello,

Sorry that I am a little late to this party - and yet still very relevant.

61,742 people agree that OFSTED should be reviewed at the very least, and I kindly urge you to add your signature to this petition (link provided below) and share it with your connections in the UK. The deadline for signing this petition is September 23rd, 2023.

At present, there are 61,742 signatures supporting the call for a review of OFSTED. We need to get to 100,000 signatures before the deadline.

If you have already added your signature, I offer my sincerest appreciation and ask that you help spread the word to others.

Best regards,
A concerned educator from the UK.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635055

Hello,

I am a little late to this party, and simultaneously still relevant.

For those who share the opinion that OFSTED should be reviewed at the very least, I kindly urge you to add your signature to this petition (link provided below) and share it with your connections in the UK. The deadline for signing this petition is 23rd September 2023.

At present, there are 61,732 signatures supporting the call for a review of OFSTED.

If you have already added your signature, I offer my sincerest appreciation and ask that you help spread the word to others.

Gratefully,
A concerned educator from the UK.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635055

I've seen quite a lot on edutwitter about headteachers who inspect for Ofsted standing down and refusing to inspect.

I wonder what morale is like at Ofsted right now. What with them also going on strike.

Fucking hell, you know you are doing something seriously wrong if even Michael Wilshaw starts pointing it out!

I wonder what a conversation between Amanda Spielman and Gillian Keegan on this topic would look like…!?

If Ofsted wants all information related to safeguarding in a standard format, stored in a standard way in a specified software programme or hard copy filing form, it should specify that nationally and the teams should inspect in a well -standardised and moderated way against that specification
Agreed.

If Ofsted want anything in a specified format they should provide the format, make it clear in the public documentation, make it clear to schools what is expected and then let us get on with it.

Some of the criticism launched at people criticising the current model of inspections seem focused on being negative about schools, but they'd do well to think about parents. How can parents possibly view judgements by Ofsted with any reliability when Ofsted themselves allow such differences and inconsistencies between inspectors?

If Ofsted wants all information related to safeguarding in a standard format, stored in a standard way in a specified software programme or hard copy filing form, it should specify that nationally and the teams should inspect in a well -standardised and moderated way against that specification.

Failing or passing arbitrarily based on what a particular inspector ‘likes’ or ‘doesn’t like’ , when this is neither specified nor standardised , is not acceptable.

Inspection team A wants risk assessment (an obvious part of safeguarding) per building. Institution has it per activity. Inspection team fails institution.

Next inspection team (not that long later, following up after failure) gets risk assessment per building. Looks puzzled, requests it per activity. Luckily previous version also available. Inspection team raises institution two grades. It’s not ‘simple’.

I don't even understand what this means, so clearly it's not that simple. Can you elaborate?

The curriculum is not confidential safeguarding info. It’s as simple as that.

or the same curriculum is printed out landscape or portrait.......

but it changes every month, so how much time should school staff spend changing the way everything is stored?

If everything is in place, surely the SLT should be able to find it? It is a failure if they cannot!!
What people are saying is that schools are being nitpicked for not having the information in the inspector's preferred format.

This is what the tiresome posts seem to miss.

Nobody is saying it's fine to have a rubbish curriculum or missing paperwork.

It is a problem if:

• Inspector A goes to one school and pulls the school up for having paperwork X in format B
• Inspector B goes to a different school on the same day and pulls the school up for having paperwork X in format A.

It is a problem if:

• Inspector A looks at a curriculum document, speaks to the relevant staff and can see it's a well planned and well-sequenced curriculum.
• Inspector B could visit the same school and tell the school the curriculum wasn't up to much because they hadn't included their favourite topics (which aren't specified in the inspection framework).

It should be obvious why can't a 'guess what the random stranger prefers on the day' approach to inspection is problematic and causes issues.

If everything is in place, surely the SLT should be able to find it?

That said, inspectors should accept ‘in place in any useful format that meets overall guidance’ rather than failures for ‘not in exactly the format I have decided in my mind they should have / we have in my place’. The latter is distressingly common.

The example I have found - published today - is Good DESPITE the detail of the paperwork that is not in place and the failure to meet minimum boarding standards for safe handling of medication.

Caversham’s report gives no details of the failings at all, and yet is Inadequate. It just has generalised ‘statement bank’ statements.

I am not saying 1 is ‘right’ and one is ‘wrong’. I am saying that different teams inspecting different schools should not gave glaring inconsistencies in their judgements, or at least should all give sufficient detail for us to understand why the judgements reached are diametrically opposed.

If everything is in place, surely the SLT should be able to find it? It is a failure if they cannot!! Do we take safeguarding seriously or not? Heads have so much advice on ofsted requirements and safeguarding procedures. Just follow it!

@queenofthewild DBS is also required for volunteers in school. That would not have any scrutiny from LA payroll etc.

The inconsistencies of Ofsted never cease to amaze me. A newly-published report for boarding provision in a state school details:

• poor record keeping around medication (doesn’t meet minimum legal boarding standards)
• gaps in safeguarding paperwork for people living on the boarding site
• Pupil with SEN does not have a personal evacuation plan in case of fire, even though this is needed

If this inspection team had visited Caversham, what grade would they have given? It shouldn’t be this variable.

I have known a safeguarding fail be justified because a multi-building institution had risk assessments by subject and activity rather than by building - the report stated that they did not have risk assessments in place. They did. Just not in the precise format the inspector demanded.

Ofsted want to see evidence of everything. And rightly so - it's important. But they also expect you to lay hands on evidence immediately. This would be fine if they always wanted their evidence in the same format. But each inspector has their own preferred way of seeing things filed.

So one inspector may want to see all the first aid certificates. They will be hugely unimpressed that you have to go through each individual HR folder to find them. Another inspector may want to see all the HR paperwork for Jane Smith, and be hugely unimpressed that some of Jane Smith's paperwork isn't all in 1 folder. School offices are having to file the same document 3 or 4 different ways in different places just to satisfy the whims of different inspectors that show up. When office staff have been cut by 2/3 in many schools because of funding cuts, things fall through the gaps. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was down to a piece of paper being filed in the wrong place. But honestly, HR will not allow you to hire without seeing proof of everything.

So why does it state checks were not done on staff during recruitment process

It's a local authority school. The HR department at the local authority won't issue a contract or put a member of staff on payroll until all the references and DBS checks are in place. I am very familiar with that local authority.

What happened was a tragedy and shouldn't be followed up with any 'but's or 'however's.

It’s terrible what happened.

However, I have read through the ofsted report online and it says that essential checks during recruitment of staff were not done or completed and if I was a parent I would be disgusted about this that there are people working in the school who haven’t had there background checked properly

Let’s hope that when there are there is no one in that school that could be putting children at risk.