Ofsted consider binning 'Outstanding' rating

[noblegiraffe]

Amanda Spielman, the new head of Ofsted told an Education Select Committee that the education sector was clear that they didn't find the outstanding rating helpful. Apparently the noise from parents is otherwise. She is conflicted about what to do.

How amazing would that be if it went? The 'pick me' dance of new initiatives, constant scrutiny, stress and leaping on every new fad that Ofsted seem to approve of just gone, and schools able to focus on solid good work.

I don't think 'parents like it' is a valid reason for keeping it. Parents place too much weight on it, especially since an outstanding school is then exempt from the inspection cycle and can have achieved its hallowed status years ago.
It would probably go some way towards solving the house price inflation around the perceived 'best' schools too.

I just can't see any downsides.
If they bin it, it'd be their best move since scrapping grading lesson observations.

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/ofsted-uncertain-about-outstanding-ratings-and-nine-other-things

It's a difficult one. Not entirely convinced that oustanding schools shouldn't be subject to much longer intervals between Ofsted visits than any other schools. Much can change in a decade!!!

DC1's school is outstanding (last Ofsted in in previous decade) and we have generally been very impressed by it. However, some 25% of the selective year group failed to pass automatically to the sixth form this year because they didn't get the required grades (this has been alluded to in another secondary school talk thread recently). This is an anomalous occurrence (usually it's no more than a handful of pupils) which to my mind sets off some alarm bells worthy of scrutiny.

Not entirely convinced that oustanding schools shouldn't be subject to much longer intervals between Ofsted visits than any other schools.

Why?

This is an anomalous occurrence (usually it's no more than a handful of pupils) which to my mind sets off some alarm bells worthy of scrutiny.

The problem is, if you wait for anomalies to occur before investigating, that damage has already been done. What's more, had the school been inspected earlier, the issues leading up to the unexpectedly low results may have been detected and rectified to prevent this outcome (granted it would depend on how good the school is at covering up any issues when inspected).

The interval between the inspection of outstanding schools means that, in some circumstances, there will be no one there from when the school was last inspected. It's possible too, that even when SLT are still there, a level of complacency is inevitable.

I worked for several years in s school that was RI with some good features. It was a Fresh Start school and had been declining for years. I have never worked with a more committed and caring set of staff, despite the difficulties. As it was situated in one of the most deprived wards in the country, the difficulties were plentiful and apparent. Not according to Ofsted though, who arrived with monotonous regularity and did not make a positive difference at all, at any time.

There was no acknowledgment or understanding of the particular circumstances. I loathe Ofsted.

Best thing i’ve heard in ages!

Now, if only the government recognised the true meaning of satisfactory...

If Ofstd judgments are really an accurate picture of a school then how did the Academy of Trinity school in Radstock go from Outstanding to Special Measures in less than 3 years under the same SLT?

I think Ofsted should indicate whether the school is providing a 'good standard of educational for its cohort, enabling them to make good progress' - roughly equating to current 'Good' BUT being VERY sensitive to context / cohort, or whether it is not. It should also give a narrative description of the school's strengths and weaknesses, and give some suggestions for improvement. There should be just 2 grades - essentially 'pass' or 'fail'.

If a school does pass, it should be inspected at least every 4 years, or an inspection can be triggered by major concerns. No school should go more than 4 years between inspections, but all these inspections should be 'light touch' 1 day affairs that could be escalated to 2 days if issues are found.

If a school fails, then another wing of Ofsted (currently doesn't exist) should swing into action. These should be a group of centrally-employed school advisors, who work with schools to improve. They should be jointly responsible, with the school management, for the school's progress, and when they believe that the school has reached the 'pass' level, they invite their inspection colleagues in again. In the meantime, they write progress reports that are moderated by Ofsted's inspection arm, but the inspection arm only comes in on a, say, 3 year cycle unless invited in earlier - in order to allow time for improvement.

This would make Ofsted not only responsible for rating schools, but also for improving them, and would make the 'inspection' arm much more linked to the 'real world' of how hard it can be to turn round schools in very challenging areas.

They should be jointly responsible, with the school management, for the school's progress, and when they believe that the school has reached the 'pass' level, they invite their inspection colleagues in again.

I think that's the most sensible thing I have ever read about Ofsted.

You do realise that you will never get a job working for the government, the DfE or Ofsted, don't you--you are far too logical!

Brilliant suggestion cant.

One of the worst things about the current Ofsted model is how headteachers are often punished instead of supported if a school is struggling. I’m sure it’s one of the reasons there’s such a shortage. There’s such a fear of the inspectors.

You do realise that you will never get a job working for the government, the DfE or Ofsted, don't you

I will confess it's never been one of my ambitions...

Great idea, can’t. At the minute Ofsted are just “the baddies.” They need to be held accountable too.

And yes, I do think they are contributing not only to the teacher recruitment and retention crisis but also to headteacher recruitment. My school is on its third round of HT recruitment as they just haven’t found a candidate up to the job. The poor HT has already deferred retirement for a year in order to try and get the school through a reinspection after a “RI” but that shows no sign of being on the horizon. Who would take on such a role? Difficult pupils, quite a lot with below average academic ability, loads with SEN, NO MONEY, and huge pressure to get a Good at the reinspection which will be happening but could happen after the current HT finally retires.

Only a mad person would go for that “challenge”.

I do think a number of people on this thread should read the Ofsted Inspection Framework and be a bit better informed about how schools are inspected.

Also I don’t think Ofsted should be the school Improvement partners. The result would be that they would employ exactly the same people as the LA school improvement teams leaving shortages in local areas. Schools need to be separate from the inspection regime in every possible way. Every LA/Trust advisory team will have access to ofsted inspectors/advice already. They know the time of day regarding what evidence inspectors want to see. All schools are able access this advice. No Head is completely alone although some choose not to take advice. As a school governor we really do listen to advice and so does the Head. We all work together to improve.

There are plenty of schools that are good who have disadvantaged children. PP money can really help address the gap. Schools need to do what works and there are plenty of schools who get excellent progress from SEN children too. These children should not be used as excuses for poor performance.

Bubbles,

I think my main issue with the Ofsted Outstanding is the fact that a school is then not inspected, often for a decade or more.

No school should go unvisited for that long: a 4-yearly 'light touch' cycle for all Good / outstanding schools should be mandatory.

Ofsted is NOT intake-blind. If you sorted secondary schools in England by their %PP a year or so ago (sadly, that functionality is no longer offered ion the gov.uk website...), those with the lowest %PP were almost exclusively Outstanding. Those with the highest, almost exclusively RI or in SM, except a couple of Catholic schools and a couple in London, where funding per pupil is up to double that of schools elsewhere in the country.

My thoughts about school improvement were based on replacing the current 'adversarial / inquisitorial' system at a national level - certainly locally, LA school improvement teams have been decimated, along with other LA services, because of academisation. Instead of school improvement teams, you get academy chains stepping in to snap up schools with RI / SM judgements, and then failing utterly to turn them round.

A department of government focused on 'standards in education' should, IME, be there not only to judge schools, but also help them to achieve the required standards.

Bubbles, pupil premium money doesn’t go very far these days. And It doesn’t do anything to make more parents from disadvantaged families turn up to events put on by school to encourage them to engage with and support school and their children. When you’ve got an information evening about how to support your child through GCSE, where a large proportion of parents from disadvantaged families fail to show up, and then a SECOND event is put on to catch the people that couldn’t make it first time round, and they STILL don’t turn up, this is what I’m talking about.

Ofsted will come in to inspect and pick at the attendance levels of pupils who have a really difficult life, with parents who have difficulties in supporting them in getting them to school, or kids who have an emotional problem which sometimes means just getting to school is a huge achievement to them. As a school you’re not allowed on inspection day to say to the inspectors “I don’t want you interrogating that child with low attendance about their experience of school, they have enough to deal with in their life” because they assume you’re trying to hide something.

Schools are busting a gut to try and close the gap between disadvantaged pupils and the rest. Ofsted don’t recognise “effort” on the part of the school when it comes to individual circumstances. All they care about is if you’re up to a particular benchmark or meet that particular standard.

Wow, Bubbles, I l know that teacher careers are usually quite short-lived, but you can't expect them to have no memory at all and just go off what the inspection handbook says.
Ofsted have been recently fighting for their survival, as there have been so many calls to get rid of them completely, such has been their effect on education. They are the tail that has been wagging the dog. The diktats over teaching style (how many INSETS have started with 'what Ofsted will be looking for is...'?) the careers ruined, the inconsistency in judgements, the stress.
So over the last 3 years Ofsted have ditched graded lesson observation and the vast swathes of private contractors (have schools that were rated by these second-rate inspectors been reinspected?), Wilshaw has gone and Sean Harford has been doing sterling work on twitter to dispel 'Ofsted myths'. But 3 years isn't very long and there are still rogue inspectors grading lessons and giving teaching advice (Harford asks for these to be reported to him).
If Ofsted are still wondering why people don't like or trust them, it's because they have been a huge blight for so long and a couple of years and a few gestures isn't enough to overturn that. There are still plenty of schools out there grading lesson observations despite Ofsted binning them, but getting rid of Outstanding would have a massive impact and show that they are serious about wanting to stop being an albatross.

As for schools with high proportions of PP kids being more likely to be graded lower - Ofsted admit that this is the case. Amanda Spielman talked about it at the most recent ResearchEd conference. She said that they'd looked at relevant Ofsted reports and found some positives despite the overall negative grading.

I think the issue is compounded by the very slow re-inspection process for schools graded 'Outstanding' under past inspection guidelines.

That creates a huglely uneven playing field.

'Failing' schools are visited annually, so you know that their grading is up to date. However, it is comparing apples with bicycles to then say that a neighbouring school inspected in 2007 is 'better' because it was Outstanding at that point.

That is why I feel that ALL schools should be inspected on a very similar cycle.

Harmonise the whole thing at 3 years, if you like. It would do a school that is doing well no harm to have a light touch visit every 3 years. Heavy-duty intensive support for 'failing' schools, followed by a formal inspection after 3 years, would allow time for a school to really turn itself round - and also prevent short term 'quick fixes / superheads' which temporarily improve the results for a year or so and then fail / leave, leaving the school in a worse mess.

As it is, the current Ofsted handbook may be more fit for purpose than the old - but until EVERY school has been reinspected under identical criteria, no faith can be placed in comparing outcomes for different schools.