Michael Wilshaw: Am I the only person who finds him obnoxious?

[MustChooseASecondary]

I'm not in education. I only know what I read in the papers. Every time I read an interview with this man, or hear a radio interview, he seems aggressive and aggravating towards parents, state school teachers, and private schools. He seems to have loads of opinions, but I'd prefer someone more collaborative and persuasive. I feel like he just wants to brow beat us all and impose his whims.

Maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick here. I would love to know what teachers make of him.

I'm not in education either. But as a parent, I agree with your assessment of him. He comes across as arrogant and full of his own sense of importance, much like Michael Gove was a Education Secretary.

Apparently he said that a good head would never be loved by his or her staff, and: "If anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low' you know you are doing something right."

I hadn't read that one. But it sounds believable.

Yes he did say that but in the same speech he said, "High morale is very important" and "Teaching is a noble profession".

The comment about knowing you are doing something right was in a passage referring to a letter he had been sent by an underperforming teacher during his early years as head. The teacher had written that he was 'crude and inconsiderate', had 'the manners of a guttersnipe', and had been a 'disaster' for the school's once happy teachers. After reading extracts he said, "The lesson from that is that if anyone says...".

Whilst it is possible that he meant what he said, his comments in the same speech about the importance of morale suggest not. I think he was suggesting that some people will try to challenge anyone who tries to manage their performance, including allegations that they have undermined staff morale. I could, of course, be wrong. But if that is what he meant he phrased it badly, giving the media and his opponents a sound bite to use against him.

Our head is well liked and respected, she's fair and honest and we feel valued. In turn, we work hard for her. Surely that's good leadership? And as for the man himself, he may be striving to achieve the right things, but how he's doing it is alienating huge numbers of teachers, support staff, childminders etc, and that is becoming a very, very real problem.....too many leaving the profession too soon plus loads of retirements means not enough people to teach/nurture/care.

Has there ever been any head of ofsted or education that the media haven't presented either as arrogant and bullying or spineless and ineffective? That's how they sell papers. You have to remember that what we read/hear has usually been heavily edited to select the most "newsworthy" (i.e. most likely to incite outrage) bits.

My impression of Wilshaw is he is doing some good things with Ofsted. He has listened to teacher bloggers and teachers now no longer receive "grades" for lesson observations (a source of huge pressure and much injustice - how can you judge a teacher's effectiveness in 20 minutes of one lesson?). He has rewritten the ofsted guidance so it is clear inspectors are not allowed to mark down schools for using teaching methods that the individual inspector doesn't like. He is stopping outsourcing of ofsted inspections (often the source of "rogue" judgments) and has taken training of inspectors back in house. There's still a lot to do, but my overall impression is favourable.

And she was presented by the media as spineless and ineffective. As I said.

I admire Michael Wilshaw and I feel he is doing a lot to improve the education of the poorest children in the UK. It is quite right that he got rid of "satisfactory". It is right that he says how things are and is 100% honest. (Ie. That school nurseries are more effective than childminders.) It is right that the progress of ALL children is deemed important and that there is no place for low expectations.

The chief inspector of OFSTED is not there to be friends with the teachers. Children only get one chance at education and it is right that Sir Michael is ruthless against inadequate schools. If that upsets people then TOUGH!

I think it was ridiculous to say that MC parents showing preference for more play at nursery was harming the prospects of deprived children. When asked in more detail he was saying that those children need more structure, more help with language development etc. That may be the case but it shouldn't mean that nurseries should be providing that instead of play. Early development is parents responsibility first and foremost. Just because some parents are inadequate at that either through lack of skills themselves or lack of interest does not mean every other child's early years experience should be set accordingly.

In my anedotal experience what was best for my middle class high achieving daughter was exactly what Sir Michael advocates. She did really well in a school nursery in a deprived area. She was at a private day nursery and bored rigid. There was no sense of direction and too much choice for the children. I feel that the staff at the day nursery did not plan the sessions as much as the school nursery. Child initated learning is not the children doing all the planning

As far as I can tell the children from low income backgrounds benefitted from school nursery as well. They benefitted from highly qualified staff who knew how to meet their needs.

It is a mystery to me why childminders or nurseries without the support of a qualified teacher are allowed to claim early years funding. I feel that there needs to be a seperation of education and childcare.

There was a leaked government memo the other day from last year saying that Wilshaw was useless, and that they wanted rid of him. Then Gove got sacked.

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/09/gove-ofsted-inspector-wilshaw-memo

Yes but he is talking about from age 2 and historically school nurseries take from 3.5. Also, my high achieving very bright daughter also wanted the academic stimulation but my very bright son was not ready for it from a social pov. He just needed to play and socialise.
Anyway, the point is that I don't agree that government or ofsted should make policy based on a small section of society.

My experience was that many private day nurseries employ young girls who have barely left school. In dd's experience the two girls who looked after the children in her room would natter to themselves while the children wandered aimlessly.

School nursery provided opportunities for developing speech and social skills. For example dd was taken on a "colour walk" in the school grounds. Children with limited speech were taught their basic colours. More able children learnt words like "crimson", "biege". They all had fun playing in the autumn leaves and learnt lots of skills without realising it.

Better qualified people make a difference to working class or middle class children.

It is a mystery to me why childminders or nurseries without the support of a qualified teacher are allowed to claim early years funding. I feel that there needs to be a separation of education and childcare

It's because the Government have promised that every 3yr old, from the term after their birthday, can get 15hours of EEE funding. Add to that, 40% of 2 yr olds have also been promised that.
School nurseries can't cater for a tiny, tiny fraction of those numbers, so the LAs have to buy in to PVIs and CMs to be able to offer the places.

Not saying I agree with it, just explaining why it has to happen.

noblegiraffe do you think Gove and Cummings were removed by Cameron because they did go too far in briefing against Wilshaw? Cummings seems absolutely deranged, with his thesis on education and genetics and his attempts to resist transparency over free schools.

Wilshaw is really abrasive. But at least he set up and ran an inner city school really well - he has a track record, although maybe that made him a bit too arrogant. He's also supported the principle of comprehensive education, improving outcomes in deprived areas and the success of the London Challenge which Gove has always turned to ignore when promoting the academies agenda. He's instigated inspections of chains when Nash and Agnew were against them, because of the unflattering truths they may reveal, since they also run chains. So for those reasons I have respect for Wilshaw. The inspection regime has been used by the politicians for the forced academisation agenda but that's not down to Wilshaw. Perhaps he shouldn't have embraced the enforcer role quite so gleefully when he started. He's been used by Gove who then turned against him.

I think Gove was removed by Cameron because he was an election liability. Teachers hate him and a lot of parents were coming to that way of thinking too. Education isn't to be the focus this election, so Nicky Morgan has been parachuted in to be bland and uncontroversial while still keeping Gove's plans trucking along. I don't think a massive fight with Ofsted just before the election is in their plans. In the meantime Gove is shoved to the background as chief whip. He was supposed to be media liaison too, but I've not seen him in the media.

I expect to see Gove back in a major role if the Conservatives win the next election.

I saw an FT headline that said Gove was attending weekly meetings with civil servants, when ministers hadn't even attended previously. He's obviously still trying to micromanage at the heart of decision making but out of the public eye.