To think criticisms of the new Ofsted ratings are self-serving?

This! The current system leads to greater inequality as it pits schools against each other and gives parents with the most resources the most choice. Schools are not a market economy and should not be, there is too much at stake.

I find it a bit alarming how so many people would happily seem to have a reduced or non existent inspection process - some people on this thread didn’t even know hospitals are inspected!

Do people know what would happen if that was the case

The whole system around safeguarding was shit and the consequences of a quickly fixable error were catastrophic.

Do you mean Ruth Perry’s suicide?

Ofsted have since recognised that if it is a minor safeguarding issue that can be amended within 90 days then schools should be given the opportunity to do this without the school being rated inadequate and the school being taken over by an academy trust that the school and community had no say in.

The whole system around safeguarding was shit and the consequences of a quickly fixable error were catastrophic.

If OFSTED came in and advised schools sincerely things would be different. If there's a safeguarding issue for example then it should be addressed immediately and checked, not left for the follow up inspection months later at best.

I've worked at outstanding schools and those in special measures and everything in between. The difference wasn't generally the teachers, it was the catchment, the struggle to follow a negative impression report, the demoralised leadership. I remember one report saying that to improve attainment we should get the children to achieve higher grades. Groundbreaking!!!

I've seen leaders and teachers who have left schools in special measures go on and successfully use the same strategies that didn't work there to apparently be outstanding elsewhere.

I think the impact of a negative inspection is what people are missing. If a school has a negative ofsted the impact is profound.
The head is usually forced out.
Many teachers will leave.
Recruitment becomes even more difficult.
Parents avoid sending their children.
Numbers decline and finding also decreases.

This state of affairs continues until the next ofsted which could be five or six years or even longer. The issues could have since been dealt with, perhaps pretty quickly but the judgement remains for all that time damaging the school.

I can't think of another public service that suffers such a prolonged impact. The damage reputationally is also disproportionate. In other sectors people move on but their careers are not essentially destroyed by that one inspection. This does happen in schools.

I would actually say better still is a panel where some know the school well and others are totally fresh to it. I do think there is an argument that local authorities in the old days could get too 'cosy' through familiarity, or too jaded that some schools were just hopeless, and so schools that really needed it never got the scrutiny needed, or insights from better practice elsewhere. But you want a mix of context and new eyes if you actually want the process to drive enhancement.

What’s always concerned me about the reaction to the Ruth Perry tragedy is that her school was given inadequate based on safeguarding.

Surely even cynics to OFSTED should recognise that this is one area schools absolutely must get right?

Loads of professions have inspections the outcome of which can affect house prices in the community?

Healthcare has CQC inspections. Food establishments have food hygiene inspections. I'm sure many other areas have inspections.

I was responding to the first comment on the thread, which is obviously incorrect as loads of professions have this

No one disagrees that schools should have oversight.

Oversight that pushes people to suicide and is actively detrimental to schools is what people object to.

and I don't know anybody who thinks there shouldn't be oversight from an external body. That's not what is being discussed.

Loads of public services. Schools are responsible for teaching our children, the next generation, and keeping them safe while they are there. Of course they should have oversight from an external body

10000% this.

In those days you were allowed to hit the kids so I suspect that standards and expectations were rather lower.

I was at school in the 60s/early 70s. Inspections (unannounced) always took place. Without all the drama of today. 🤷‍♀️

Agree with @noblegiraffe and @AllProperTeaIsTheft 's posts.

There's nothing different about this proposal except the individual words changing.

This.

What actually is the alternative though?

See above.
Pretty much like HMI (Her Majesty's Inspectorate) used to do.
They would get to know the schools, and would support them to improve in areas they weren't doing well at.

OFSTED's "Take a snapshot; ignore all known circumstances; publicly humiliate; then leave without advice or suggestions on how to improve" is not a model that can possibly make sense to anyone.

OFSTED needs to change, it criticises but is not there to improve anything, this reform is an opportunity to change things much more radically. Currently if you fail OFSTED it can career ending for the head, staff able to move do, staff who don’t feel able stay and improving their performance or removing them is very difficult. The structure to improve schools following Ofsted isn’t reliable, in fact there’s a good chance things will get worse as staff leave, it’s difficult to attract people to a struggling school with a poor ofsted judgment hanging over it. It’s all stick and no carrot and this reform does nothing to address this.

I agree with this. Our Head is an Ofsted inspector. I pity any school they inspect.

As an aside, working in the business side of a school, we do actually get our finances audited and our kitchens inspected too. It's not as if we aren't aware of other types of inspection.

For healthcare, The CQQ does exactly those.

People are comparing ofsted to other examples where external agencies inspect eg prison, healthcare, pharmaceutical groups etc. But, I feel that ofsted is different.

They make a judgement based on opinion and rely on children to give an accurate account of their learning (eg a lesson should be taught in a certain way/children haven't made enough progress/ child A couldn't remember learning about the Greeks three years ago). When judging teaching they look at books, not knowing if that child has made huge progress despite how the book looks, those children may have turbulent home lives and struggle to stay awake or hate school. Obviously things like safeguarding are easily assessed but quality of learning is hugely subjective.

Ofsted should be collaborative. Where they see aspects that require improvement they should point the school in the direction of another school that is successful in that area and offer to help. Instead they blow in for two days, make a snapshot judgment, announce areas of improvement then don't offer any support at all. Just the treat of a return visit within 30 months. In my experience, if they'd have come into school a week later or month earlier, the report probably would have chosen something different to criticise.

Working together is key to fixing schools without the stress of high stakes inspection.

Inspections are needed but shouldn’t be an instrument of torture. I know of several head teachers who suffered nervous breakdowns because of them. Good heads not useless ones. Ofsted should be the means to follow a practical action plan and give support for those who need it. Instead of three one word descriptors they’ve got five.