Skip to main content

Ofsted

Our school recently went through our latest Ofsted inspection, under three years since our last and, once again, in the vanguard of schools inspected under the latest framework which focuses on just four areas: achievement, teaching, behaviour and safety, and leadership and management. To use those familiar footballing metaphors, goalposts are moved again and the bar is raised. I cannot yet say how we got on, but I can offer a few reflections.

Although everyone wants to do well, most of the pressure falls upon the Head and SLT. The pressure to be "outstanding" is high. The staffroom becomes a place of greater mirth, an "us and them" spirit is pervasive and we enjoy a greater than usual feeling of solidarity. One of the commonest questions is "Have you been observed?" Staff recount how lessons went and how they found each inspector. Teachers try harder than usual, write more detailed lessons plans, though many teachers are not observed at all. Inspectors are under as much scrutiny as teachers and pupils, and we don't always agree with their judgments. Indeed, we take pleasure in disagreeing with them. Meanwhile pupils rise to the occasion and do their best to support their teachers.

These days there is no sense of collaboration with the inspection team, as there once was when the inspectors were greater in number and had more time to talk and give feedback. The latest time-pressured, two day system puts greater pressure on both school and inspector and I was left thinking that they have a pretty grotty job. The recent frameworks also mean that the Ofsted team have too little time to really get to know the school. I was surprised to learn that they are only paid for the two days of inspection and do no preparation before the event. They have a pre-inspection document, shared with the Head, which gives them a steer for the inspection. There is considerable emphasis on any weaknesses highlighted in the last inspection.

Current priorities for inspectors include literacy, numeracy, bullying, assessment for learning and, apparently, teachers talking less. They talk a good deal to students and offer feedback to individual teachers. Middle leaders get to speak to inspectors too.

What about broader issues? We are told that the government believes in greater localism, yet we are still accountable, via Ofsted, the central government, not the local community. In addition, as more and more schools decide to become academies, financed directly from London, accountable to the Secretary of State, not the local authority, the local community is taken out of the loop completely.

I do believe we need a measure of public accountability, but I would sooner see us accountable to the local community, inspected by a local school board working with nationally agreed criteria. Inspection should be tough and probing, but it could also be collaborative. Inspection is currently something which is "to you" not "with you". Furthermore, the current top down system dictates the direction a school subsequently takes. The school's development plan has little to do with the objectives a school may like to set itself, much more to do with those priorities dictated by Ofsted, i.e. the DES.

Would we do our jobs better or worse without Ofsted? Not sure, but the money spent on Ofsted would be better spent on teacher improvement.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,