Ofsted needs to be abolished - further details

[MrsMurphyIWish]

Have started a new thread as think it’s important this doesn’t just get lost on my previous thread

The Ofsted report for the school where the head teacher died has been published …

They are toxic and need reform immediately.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4765105-ofsted-needs-to-be-abolished-trigger-warning?page=1

It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a grade.

They can say safeguarding is inadequate, or they can say safeguarding doesn’t meet the necessary standards, or they can say safeguarding is poor. The meaning is pretty much the same even if the wording changes.

Not having a grade isn’t going to make much difference assuming we use words to communicate.

And yet that grade isn’t a good description of the school. It has probably fixed its paperwork and duty rota.

Is that grade helpful to a parent looking at a school for September for their child? I wouldn’t have thought so.

If you hear a school is outstanding and your first question is ‘how long ago?’ then that grade is pointless.

If an Ofsted grade puts you off applying for a school without hesitation because it means you think the school will be either jumping through stupid hoops to maintain its rating, or to get out of a category, then that’s a problem with the rating system.

Not having a grade isn’t going to make much difference assuming we use words to communicate.

Lots of headteachers seem to disagree with you, from listening to discussions around this.

It isnt an argument for removing the grading though

It's an argument for more thorough frequent grading

That the grades are useless is certainly an argument for losing them.

That they can have a devastating impact on a school is another.

That headteachers are expressing intolerable stress levels caused by the grading system is another.

That the grades are subjective bobbins is another.

That they correlate with local deprivation levels is another.

That they have a huge impact on house prices even when years out of date is another.

That chasing Ofsted grades takes time away from actually improving education is another.

But none of that was relevant to Caversham.

Caversham didn't fail for educational reasons.

It failed for safeguarding. Basic safeguarding was inadequate.

Ofsted shouldn't be preventing from labelling inadequate safeguarding as inadequate because a head is upset or stressed.

Adequate safeguarding is as important in deprived areas as privileged areas.

Lots of headteachers disagree because OFSTED is one of the only ways that a HT can lose a position.

But none of that was relevant to Caversham.

One of those appears to be extremely relevant to Caversham.

Ofsted gave my bad head a glowing write-up so I’m not sure I’ve much faith in them there.

I’ve heard of heads being managed out in other ways though.

That said, the extreme shortage of heads makes it harder to get rid of bad ones.

Nope! There is a very clear annual performance management process. HT’s are held to account by LA’s, LA’s by elected members. DfE meetings also put the senior LA officers under pressure to explain the actions to improve a school. I’ve worked to support and to dismiss HT’s in the maintained sector.

I can't speak for academy trusts who are not under the same scrutiny.

OFSTED can often be a catalyst for HT removal or choosing to leave, including public humiliation and/or academisation, where the trust do not want the HT.

OFSTED do often say a crap school is good. I have to admit though I’ve never known them claim a good school is inadequate (I know, new framework, but I don’t think a school that does safeguarding badly or ineffectively IS a good school.)

@AdaLane HTs get away with blue murder a lot of the time, and a lot of the time that includes OFSTED.

I feel this thread is going around in circles.

Ruth’s death is an absolute tragedy but hopefully will ignite a change.

My outstanding school is an awful to work in but my “RI” was a dream and it was such a kick in the face to be told we were being out in special measures.

The grading is a joke.

Also I'm going to take major issue with one of your premises.

Correlation does not mean causation.

One of the biggest problems I see in schools currently is the management of mental health and ADHD. Schools are not positive environments for many kids with adhd or mental health difficulties.

Privileged areas parents are more able and more likely to be able to go privately for quick diagnosis and treatment.

Deprived areas that may well not be possible. They may be reliant on CAMHs and the NHS which takes years

In turn that will have an impact on behaviour in school which will make a positive ofsted that much harder.

I can walk into a classroom in a deprived area and often spot 2 or 3 kids clearly with adhd struggling in a classroom environment without an EHCP or even a diagnosis on the system.

That's before you even start with whether a parent may agree or even approve of a diagnosis.

But that isn't ofsted's fault. They arent necessarily causing that deprivation. Ofsted are may just be reflecting the reality of the challenges of the area.

But let's remember Caversham is not a Deprived area.

And we're not talking about an ofsted that was failed on behaviour management or teaching.

It failed for basic safeguarding. No school anywhere should fail for basic safeguarding.

Least of all a nice school in a good area with limited challenging behaviour.

But that's the whole point.

Ruth's death should spark improvements in support for mental health.

Not changes to Ofsted. Personally I can't see ofsted have done anything wrong in this case

You appear to have just defended Ofsted downgrading schools for having a challenging intake, while also claiming that correlation does not equal causation. Which is it?

Not ofsted causing deprivation.

But deprivation causing a bad Ofsted.

Which it shouldn't, right?

@Treaclehair
HTs get away with blue murder a lot of the time, and a lot of the time that includes OFSTED.

That comment isn't even worth a response.

Actually I think that is inevitable.

But that doesn't mean ofsted needs change.

Personally I think it's a bigger reflection on CAHMS and the NHS

Why bother sending Ofsted in when you can just look at a school's FSM % then?

So I’ll assume you genuinely think I have an agenda of some sorts here, which I don’t. There are some excellent HTs out there, some poor HTs and all manner in between.

However, a HT can hold a disproportionate amount of power in a school. Such as this HT, or this one or this. Yes, extreme cases, but the point is with all three that they were in post for years. HTS can refuse to give references at all, effectively ending a career, or start capability procedures on spurious evidence, or give poor references when unjustified.

OFSTED regularly don’t pick up on things like this when they should - high staff turnover is something they should really be scrutinising - but as it stands, OFSTED are one of the few areas that’s supposed to be an objective look at how the school is run. As far as I can see in this case, it was.

I’ve worked with lots of HTs and seen some play fast and loose with safeguarding.

There can be a view that ‘we’re in a naice school, in a naice area, with naice families’, or that ‘we’re a faith school, things like that don’t happen here’. However, we know that they do… And that in this respect HTs should be held to account.

Why anyone would want to be a HT though is beyond me…

@Treaclehair can't see any mention of OFSTED in that article. The only explanation for that sequence of events, is that one of the teachers or TAs whistle blew to the STA. And good for them.

I know - I wasn’t talking about OFSTED, sorry, I was talking about HTs often having largely carte blanche to act as they will.

But they really don't have carte Blanche. They are scrutinised, they are accountable. I dealt with a SATs failure, through my unannounced monitoring. I dealt with another, which came to light through governor monitoring. HT now struck off through the Professional Conduct panel.

Yes, some unscrupulous HT’s around, but that is the same in all jobs.

You seem to imply that HT’s are unaccountable, which given the layers of scrutiny, the moderation, the monitoring, the reporting, is just not true.