(TW : discussion of Ruth Perry's suicide) To feel uncomfortable with the way Ruth Perry's death was described as 'the fault' of Ofsted?

[Carla786]

From the evidence, it's clear that the Ofsted inspector behaved abominably and the whole organisation needs a thorough overhaul.

However, I was reading a recent thread on the Caroline Flack documentary and for all the differences, one thing that reporting of Flack's suicide has shared is that it has often explicitly laid blame for a suicide on someone else.

In Flack's case, the media have been blamed for her suicide. In Perry's case, the inquest explicitly blamed Ofsted, as did some media.

This makes me uncomfortable...maybe it's wrong of me to feel this way, but I think of the GC threads that originally drew me to MN. Threads on the reporting of suicides of trans teenagers often rightly pointed out the danger of media implying that external people/forces caused a suicide, noting that it contradicts guidelines that the Samaritans (among others) have for good reason.

Perry was an adult, but these guidelines aren't just for teenagers. I don't want to downplay the terrible way she was treated by Ofsted. But I just feel very uncomfortable about the implications of media and then the official inquest explicitly implicating Ofsted in her suicide.

Am I wrong to feel uncomfortable about this?

I met someone who worked for Ofsted who was on stress leave because he said changed from being able to help and support schools to being expected to "catch them out" and punish them.

However, I have seen some comments from coroners over the years which I feel are uninformed or unfair. Coroners arent answerable to anyone that I can tell, and yet their statements carry a lot of weight.

The Samaritans guidelines say that suicide rarely has a single cause, and that focus on one thing as the cause can have a negative effect on suicidal people who read this kind of reporting.

I've linked to the guidelines upthread.

What do you think about Ruth Perry's own words?

I think teachers used her death to push their own agenda of watering down OFSTED powers. Teachers can’t possibly be expected to cope with being assessed and tested on their ability to keep children safe and educate them to a reasonable standard. Never mind children being endlessly assessed, told they’ve failed if they get less than a C and not receiving anywhere near adequate support if they have learning difficulties/ND. Hypocrites.

Why did it change? That's horrible. I suppose the nice people like your colleague got worn down then & left, leaving aggressive people who want to put others down.

What kind of coroners' reports? In this case I'm not exactly sure if I disagree or not, but I think reporting it like that is dangerous for the reasons I said up thread.

But ‘cause’ is not the same as ‘contributed to’.

Why do you keep ignoring that point?

Hmm...I'm not sure.

I do think that the teachers refusing to let in Ofsted in protest were going too far.

Here’s your award for shitty irrelevant post! 🏅

Very little of that has to do with teachers.

Your bias is very much showing.

I see what you mean...I feel less uncomfortable with the coroner saying that then with the media reporting. I remember before the verdict there were a lot of articles putting the responsibility for her death on Ofsted.

Are doctors told that they cannot discuss the results of their inspections with anyone else and told that they are not allowed to discuss the results with anybody?

I feel that your response is somewhat facetious.

I am not sure what point you are getting at - I said in my post that I met someone who had a breakdown because of what his role at Ofsted had become, so there is no doubt it is unfair and needs reform.

But that does not change the fact the the coroner system also has some problems.

Was it this one? I didn't wholly agree (and this was pretty inquest) but I did agree with some.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/we-cant-blame-ofsted-for-ruth-perrys-death-r6twcm8js&ved=2ahUKEwjPnKib8ZCRAxXFZ0EAHQOAOiUQFnoECEEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1qEGL-0EFiWjDdOhCFlmxS

Your link doesn't work for me.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be.

I meant it as a serious statement that doctors etc are inspected too but that Ofsted seems particularly pressurised and bullying. Also restrictions like the kind you mention : and one word ratings don't have the same status among hospital patients as school parents (though maybe hospital ratings should be more public, not one word though)

I wonder if it's more comfortable for people to think that the inspection must have been reasonable and proportionate, really, and that the demands for change must be unreasonable, because then they don't have to acknowledge the terrible fact that someone has died who almost certainly would not have done if the system and the conduct of that inspection had been different. Perhaps they can then put it down to someone having an unreasonable reaction to something normal they think they themselves would have coped with fine, which is a more comforting thought than the idea that a system can actually go this badly wrong.

Sorry, this one does.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/we-cant-blame-ofsted-for-ruth-perrys-death-r6twcm8js&ved=2ahUKEwiVtvCL8pCRAxULT0EAHTzlIsUQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1qEGL-0EFiWjDdOhCFlmxS

I've said in my OP that I agree the treatment of Perry was terrible and that Ofsted needs to be hugely reformed.

School inspections have moved from being supportive to being the means by which schools are punished.

I mentioned earlier about schools being forced to become academies. This has also been used to force a change in teachers work conditions as academies are not required to go by the normal standards or pay and conditions of the burgundy book or employ qualified teachers.

Also safeguarding is an area that even if all of the other areas are excellent, the school can still be failed for safeguarding issues (not necessarily a bad thing).

But again OFSTED should be a supportive not punitive process.

But surely it would be hard not to feel shamed by that kind of treatment? Even if, as in Perry's case, you know it's an unfair judgement?

She was afraid of losing her job : one she was devoted to. There's nothing wrong with being devoted to your work, it shouldn't put you at risk the way it put Perry at risk.

I think the fact it was the most popular village school is important. This was a small community where everyone would know, she was afraid her daughter would be bullied among other things.

Whereas at my school I know that all the teachers would have been devastated by being unfairly graded like that, but most lived some distance away so it would at least not have such severe knock-on effects to their lives outside work.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-67620626#:~:text=By%20this%20time%2C%20senior%20staff,to%20make%20more%20schools%20academies.%22&text=Two%20months%20after%20Mrs%20Perry's,go%20snuggle%20with%20their%20parents.%22

Academies are not required to hire qualified teachers or pay adequately? That's shocking.

I was reading an article last week praising the academy programme and arguing it 'liberated' teachers from LA standards. That seems very misleading to say the least, given what you say...

I do agree with you on safeguarding. The thing with Perry's case is that the inspector seems to have been making an effort to bully as humiliate. If they had been kind, maybe the sting of the inadequate rating might have been a little lessened.

interesting how you have changed

"academies are not required to go by the normal standards or pay and conditions of the burgundy book"

to "pay adequately"

When the terms and conditions of the burgundy book are so much more than pay.

Because I'm wondering why you are casting aspersions on coroners on a thread about the death of Ruth Perry where a coroner concluded that Ofsted contributed towards her suicide.

What point are you getting at?

Carla786 · Today 22:55

The thing with Perry's case is that the inspector seems to have been making an effort to bully as humiliate. If they had been kind, maybe the sting of the inadequate rating might have been a little lessened.

Its not just about wording something kindly.
Is it about allowing them to access support for their mental health and wellbeing, something that was not allowed in this case.
And supporting the Head/school in putting the issue right and not just leaving them floundering with some poorly worded, grey shaded, meaningless guidance. If she even received that.

I don't think you understand the consequences of an Inadequate rating if you think the inspector not being kind was the main issue.

The school is then forcibly taken over by an academy trust that the school will have no say in. The original school is gone.