18-year career as an Ofsted inspector ended by a single email

[nodramaplease]

Ofsted have decided in their wisdom to annul my accreditation as an inspector because never having been a teacher, I apparently can't judge teaching. So, hey, having done so for the past 18 years and having passed every quality assessment they threw at me apparently they were wrong all the time! An unblemished career ended by a single email. Presumably this also means that every inspection any of us non-teachers has ever done is also invalid, and also every grading, despite them having been approved by our lead inspectors and higher authorities? But never mind logic, let's just score a cheap brownie point with the teaching unions -- don't worry about whether we're actually good inspectors or not. I am sad and angry: it was a huge privilege to witness so many lessons (600+ inspections). I'd like to say a huge cheer for the many fantastic teachers this country has got, and I hope that those who didn't do quite so well found our conversations helpful.

That AI ad is vair interesting.

Nice option for schools to second someone, have ofsted pay their wages for a bit, and have an unqualified TA and a couple of supply hours to cover the workload... Bit of a cost saving for the school if they do it right.

(with the added impetus that the school would then have an ofsted inspector on roll. )

Win, win, really. (except for, um, the kids and the unwanted experienced AIs, and the teachers and other staff picking up the slack, but y'know.)

The whole thing is frankly bizarre, and I can understand the op's frustration.

The governor thing is interesting, especially with the appointment of head teachers. I find it difficult to square that 'civilians' are capable of running the selection process for a new HT, and choosing one, for a school, (which usually includes an assessment of the candidate's teaching skills in a planned lesson) but that someone with 18 years experience of the same is deemed less capable. And an ofsted inspector isn't the one hiring or firing. Funny old world.

I hope you find an equally fulfilling appointment elsewhere, op.

A teacher has big fat final salary pension

Erm. No. My pension will be £14,000 a year. (if I'm lucky and no more changes are made)

A lot of the comments from teachers on this thread are what gets my back up about teachers, they have no idea what happens in the real world.

Hello! I have a 15 year career in management prior to going into teaching. Amongst the teachers in my school, only two have never done anything besides teaching. There is an ex-miner, an ex-social worker, an ex-lawyer and an ex-customer services manager. Realise this is not representative of all schools, but to say that teachers have no idea what is going on in the real world is a truly sweeping statement.

375 is really not that much as a daily rate for a role like this. A similar position in law would be about £700 + VAT + expenses.

Agree. Probably would be. However, a role in Law would probably follow a 4-5 year degree course plus intensive training and they only take the best. From what the OP has said, there wasn't that much to getting her job in the first place (not taking anything away from her competency after 18 years, just stating a fact.)

But people who work in education on the whole don't do it for the money, they do it because they want to do a meaningful job where they are making a contribution.

Agree wholeheartedly.

My projected pension for my 15 years in the private sector is more than my projected big fat final salary teacher's pension

Madwoman, there are always LEA advisors (often ex-heads) on the selection panel for heads, so governors are not on their own.

My projected pension is zero
because I am not willing to throw good money after bad into a DC scheme - which is all that is available to me as a self employed person.

My day rate is rather more than £375, but I did do three years of exams after my degree and have to do 40 hours of CPD every year

FTSE 100 directors, City bankers, City lawyers, members of the cabinet, popstars, premier league footballers - they definitely don't live in the "real world." Not sure how teachers can be accused of not living in the real world, when they have the real world coming in through the school gates every day and real people from all walks of life being aggressive or patronising towards them on a regular basis. Amazing how many people criticise teachers for having a cushy life, yet strangely don't seem to want to take up this hugely cushy number themselves.
And no, I'm not a teacher, just fed up with ignoramuses who think they live in the "real world," but actually generally have no more experience of any industry besides the one they work in than some teachers do. In the "real" world, teachers have a better deal than some and a worse deal than a lot of others. Or do some people think their shitty private sector job is what everyone in the private sector has to put up with?

I know, double. But I'm guessing that on an ofsted team the same will apply. Head of team unlikely to be an AI...

Our LEA advisor was present, indeed, but largely to steer process. The judgement of candidates and decision was very much down to board.

It's all a bit of a mess, really.

There is no such as the "real world". Schools are part of the real world, but the real world is far bigger than just education. I think that lay inspectors provided a good balance between the teaching world and the rest of the world.

I found when I worked in schools that many teachers could be speculaturally arrognant. For example they looked down on support staff and could be horrendously snobby. For example with IT support, some teachers regarded it as menial role beneath them and proud of not "being technical".

Schools are far more than just teaching. I would like OFSTED to assess the emotional welbeing of a large organisation. Ie. if a school has a very high turnover of staff or students then there is often something wrong. Schools need to be happy places inorder for the children to thrive.

You'll never find the present government agreeing on that one - they don't appear to think the happiness of employees has any relevance to anything. In the "real world," it's your own fault for being useless if you are miserable... And just as there is no such thing as the "real world" there is not such thing as "the rest of the world" - if the teaching world is a separate world, then so is the legal world, the business world, the caring world, the cleaning world, the retail world, the engineering world, the pharmaceutical world, the medical world, the scientific world, the literary world, the art world, the manufacturing world, the unemployed world, the starving world etc, etc, etc. Human beings are human beings - they all have weaknesses. Arrogance is a common one in pretty much all areas of human life where one group of humans has responsibility for others, because in some human minds, responsibility=superiority.

"If anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low' you know you are doing something right." (Willshaw)

Not sure emotional well-being is top priority for Ofsted at the moment really !

I love the fact that people are claiming their "15 years in business" means they understand the real world yet refuse to admit that the OP's 18 years as a trained Ofsted inspector mean anything.

doesn't it make more sense that this person who is judging actually has the experience of being in a classroom?

No, it is meaningless if that person's experience of being in a classroom is a crap one. Far better to have an independent view point.

Oh, and yes, £375 a day is a fabulous day rate. Which works out at a stonking £5,625 pa on a 5-days-a-term basis. Minus expenses.

According to OFSTED's own website, they inspect:

maintained schools and academies
some independent schools
early years and childcare
children?s centres; children?s homes
family centres
adoption and fostering services and agencies
CAFCASS
children?s services in local authorities
initial teacher training
further education colleges and 14 to 19 provision
a wide range of work-based learning and skills training
adult and community learning
probation services
and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments.

So why are they insisting that their inspectors must have teaching experience? Are we to expect that only ex-childminders will inspect childminders; ex-foster carers will inspect fostering services; ex-probation officers will inspect probation services?

Why must all these inspectors also have first-hand experience of teaching? I don't suppose any of those professions want to be inspected by someone who has not done their job and does not understand it. I suspect they'll be told "Tough!", though.

Why does the OP only work 5 days a term? The last team to visit my setting had already completed 3 inspections in half a term ... So is it the OPs choice?

Tanith childrens services (homes, foster care etc) are inspected by teams with experience in social work. Child minders and day nurseries must have someone with experience in early years education ...

Mrz additional inspectors get the amount of work the contractor chooses to give them. I would gladly do more than five days a term (again, I point out this was the most I'd had in a term for two years two a term is more typical), but the majority of inspection work is done by (1) HMIs and (2) the additional inspectors who are staff members of the three contractors workforce. We freelancers, whether ex-teachers or not, get what's left and we don't have any say over how much we get. This has not always been the case (used to be better before contractors took on inhouse staff when they got bigger and bigger). Incidentally, the contractor has offered the chance to inspect early years settings outside schools ... um, this means that I would be again inspecting something of which I have no direct experience! Whether or not I choose to do this, it makes a nonsense of their argument!

Also, you don't work in a specific team, you work with whoever else happens to have got assigned to that inspection. It is therefore very rare nowadays for a team to know each other before they meet in the car park. Personally, I think this is not necessarily the greatest way to run an inspection force, but again, it's not up to us.

You're missing the point, mrz.

Why is it fine for a childminder, for example, to be inspected by someone who merely has Early Years education experience, yet it's not acceptable for a teacher to be inspected by someone who has 18 years of relevant education experience, but has not been a teacher?

Same for the probation service, children's services, children's centres etc.

Yes I know you are contracted by a private contractor who has a contract with Ofsted ...

Speaking personally the old HMI inspections were more useful/supportive/evaluative/reflective to me as a teacher

I believe that it is important that Ofsted Inspectors are qualified and experienced teachers, because they should not just be judging teachers they should be giving excellent feedback and advice on how they can improve. Indeed they shouldn't just be ex teachers, they should be teachers who have had a lot of recent experienced and been recognised as outstanding leaders and trainers themselves. To me inspectors just going in for a few days is a waste of time and money - they should be taking an active part in improving the school, if they can't do that themselves what are they doing?

OP why don’t you use all that experience you have gained to become a teacher?

FrancescaH not sure why you reviving an old thread, however it jumps out of the page that there should be some division of labour. Inspectors are inspectors, that is their main job. Headteachers run the school including any improvements to be identified / needed on a daily basis. So although you can get the feedback from the inspector, the main responsibility falls on the Head and rest of the structure.

First of all I am so sorry that this has happened, and I agree that it begs the question of why you were considered competent for years and suddenly no longer. I actually had no idea that Ofsted inspectors didn't have to be teachers. One thing that occurs to me is that it depends what is being asessed by ofsted - is it 1) the quality of the teaching or 2) the quality of the learning? I feel that if it were 1), then you would want the inspector to be a trained teacher, but if it were 2) then you might not necessarily.

whoops - zombie thread!

I don't doubt your ability to do your job, but your comment about teachers being the star of the performance does ring alarm bells for me, as it is not how I teach at all.

Before training as a teacher in the UK I did a TEFL qualification and worked with a charity in another part of the world. There was a poem on the wall that I have always wished I took a copy of. It said that the best aid work involves supporting people in making the improvements they need and leaving quietly, so that they never notice you were there at all. While this isn't quite how I teach either, it is probably closer to it. For me, it is the kids doing the learning. If anything, they are the stars of the show and I am the stagehand.