The fight back against OFSTED has begun - support needed

[wantmorenow]

Just saw this and it seems genuine and if so then bloody marvellous. Let's hope this is the rallying call to changes with immediate effect. This has been posted today. A Headteacher has refused access to Ofsted tomorrow, I assume in the wake of the coverage of Ruth Perry's death.

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

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4765712-ofsted-needs-to-be-abolished-further-details

twitter.com/FloraSCooper/status/1637760884243066881

I've just had the call.
I've refused entry.
This is an interesting phone call.
Doing this for everyone for our school staff everywhere!

School asking for support in person tomorrow 8am if local.

As much as I think Ofsted as a whole is not fit for purpose, it's the only flimsy thing we currently have, bar whistleblowers, to raise concerns about safeguarding in schools.

I do think there needs to be some oversight by an overarching body: my child's school only got rid of a terrible HT because of a poor Ofsted report. But I agree it shouldn't be a one off inspection body, it should be much more balanced with a supportive element to help schools improve.

@Barbecuebeans

All of those things. I would add to this extremely poor discipline in some schools, where the school bends over backwards to keep the disruptive children in education, while throwing all the other children's education under the bus.

The poor access to support for children who are struggling, either with their mental health or academically.

Schools have no choice but to have the 'disruptive' children in education. SEND children are not supported by this government.

Write to your MP. Don't vote Tory.

And only if an academy trust will sponsor the school. Academy trusts ‘cherry pick’, of course, in the main, they don't want financially unstable schools, those with poor perception, unstable staffing, often in high disadvantage communities. Small rural schools also find it really hard to find academy sponsors.
Academies know the effort, skill and cost required to take on these schools - and make them good again, the pressure involved - so don't.

LA’s continue to maintain the school and support it to move forward, but there is a huge risk, of closure for such schools.

As a child I remember a time pre Ofsted. In my school the standards were appallingly low, girls were subject to routine abuse by teachers (physical and sexual) and with no supervision local schools were able to carry on just as they pleased. IMV inspection is important. Happy for there to be reformed, but all of the rest of us are subject to routine appraisals, inspections and audits far more frequently. it is stressful, but is routine in any job.

it is stressful, but is routine in any job.

in the private sector we expect very short notice financial audits. Stressful! But the idea of the CEO stopping access is so laughably ridiculous.

I have enormous respect for teachers. But there is a very real sense that some teachers think they should just be “allowed to get on with it”

And that is just not on!

Again for the hard of hearing at the back, no one, no teachers, are saying that schools shouldn't be inspected. In fact, if you read back on this thread and others, most are saying schools should be inspected for safeguarding - the most important thing - more often.

On issues like curriculum and teaching/learning changes, you can't effect meaningful change in a year, so 3 - 4 yearly is a good timeframe for Ofsted. No one in schools has issue with the next day warnings either.

Schools have no choice but to have the 'disruptive' children in education. SEND children are not supported by this government.

Write to your MP. Don't vote Tory.

There's been a huge rise in children with ehcps but not in SEND school places. This has been going on for the last 10 years. The bbc recently reported that a significant factor is that medical technology for difficult and premature births or other health conditions has improved life expectancy which is of course fantastic.

But many of these children also need specialist schools. The government will / should have known this but have done nothing.

They've also simultaneously cut school budgets drastically.

We've seen our cohorts move from 'moderate learning difficulties' to 'severe learning difficulties.' We aren't actually as well set up as local SLD schools though we try our best. The children we should have are in mainstream as a result of lack of appropriate spaces.

They've dismantled LEAs and privatised cpd training- complete hotch potch of unregulated education companies.

We've waited for 2.5 years past what we expected for Ofsted visiting; we are SEND and that's not good enough for the children or our mental health. Luckily we still have an LEA in action (more than many areas) who are supportive to local schools, including around support for Ofsted. (I queried this and an slt member who's also Ofsted inspector confirmed we are unusual.) But it's not the same elsewhere.

All of this, Ruth's tragic death included was avoidable.

In fact, if you read back on this thread and others, most are saying schools should be inspected for safeguarding - the most important thing - more often

This with bells on.

And I don't like the labour idea of divorcing Ofsted from safeguarding; it should be embedded in the curriculum.

I do like their idea of getting rid of gradings, this has happened for teacher observations.

Not quite but the other methods aren’t well publicised. LAs will routinely (weekly where I am) meet to share information about schools and there is a “schools causing concern” process. Local safeguarding partnerships carry out s11 and s157/175 audits of local schools to assess their safeguarding arrangements (though level of scrutiny of schools’ self-assessments may vary). But whether the average parent would know to raise any concerns to the LA or whether LAs have the capacity to act is a different question.

Safeguarding…. Absolutely

but as a parent…. I would like to know a damn sight more than simply ofsted thinks my child is safe.

I find the reports very useful

Also however tragic it is that the HT took her own life (and it absolutely IS tragic) it is correct that ofsted should have a duty to automatically "fail" a school where something as basic as DBS vetting hasn't been done correctly?
I would have to be DBS vetted to be allowed to help out for a day camp at my DC cubs group. As is correct.
The thought of my children being in a school with adults who have not been correctly background checked is chilling.

Slam my experience of recent Ofsted 'looming' was that from the outset of the previous one, safeguarding was embedded (as it should) in the whole school with the support of the LA.

It's all part of a multi service operation but at the same time, with Ofsted specifically focussing on staff understanding of safeguarding (they throw key questions into interviews with staff) it makes schools make sure that the whole picture is focussed on at all times.

There are some basic things linked to safeguarding that a school will be instantly failed on if Ofsted see them. Years ago we were told they must be able to phone to school for the first contact and get through to someone for example. Because it could be a parent or an emergency call.

My point is that it's central the whole picture of a school.

However, that includes the safety of staff and the head.

That school and head teacher were failed by others, as well as Ofsted . As, as you say, schools aren't islands managing themselves.

Absolutely

And it is indicative of so much more if the school is remiss with something so important

@Lovelyveg82 the reports are very short now. I'm appalled at the lack of info on the latests ones. Ours is rubbish compared to the feedback we had and tells parents nothing. They aren't allowed to use certain phrases for example.

You may be thinking of reports from some time ago.

My point is safeguarding is the foundation that underpins everything else.

Indeed

so correct a school should receive a very poor rating for being remiss with none other than DBS checks

Unfortunately yes - but we've had all that drilled into us. (We even go through phases of have weekly quizzes- eg where is xyz policy? Who is in charge of xyz? What do you do if xyz happens?) A very involved LEA. Schools can't do this on their own.

The fucking Tories completely dismantled centralised education and privatised as many areas that they could. It's a mess

https://twitter.com/ict_mrp/status/1637920710210224129?s=46&t=eg_3Kd3btjfiAYzI3yZ-lA

Looking through the responses , both good and bad, they're accurate reflections of what I know of Ofsted. Ofsted inspectors themselves are variable.

Also some SLTs are horrific to staff.

Ofsted now ask staff to fill in a questionnaire on how the slt support them and well being.

I urge any teacher who gets ofstedded to really make use of that form.

The reports I have read suggest that the dbs issue was a visitor to the school who was not British born. A dbs check was done, but an overseas check could not also be done, and there was a lack of risk assessment documentation around this. An error that needed correcting, quite possibly. An automatic ofsted ‘inadequate’, regardless of all the other good things? I don’t think so.

Of course a dbs in this country wild be fine if they were from another country.

Hence the importance of the overseas check

hence the severity of the failure

But it wasn’t possible to do the overseas check. Not available. So, do we only
allow British people into schools?

It’s always possible to do an overseas police check. The problem is it takes weeks and sometimes months.

There are safeguarding weaknesses within the DfE’s own system that haven’t been mentioned on here. For example, early years providers are not given access to the list of teachers who have been barred, so are unable to carry out one of the safeguarding checks that is mandatory for schools. I requested access to the list and was denied it on the basis that I didn’t have a DfE number, only an EY number, so wasn’t eligible. But if this is such an important check that a school would automatically receive an inadequate rating without evidence of it being carried out, why don’t nurseries have to complete it also?

There are other weaknesses. For example, overseas checks only have to be carried out where someone has lived overseas in the past five years. This means that someone could have committed a murder in another country 20 years ago but only need a DBS check if they have been living in the UK for the last five years.

Where is the logic? The whole system needs an overhaul.

Looks like Flora Cooper let them in 🤦‍♀️