The government’s decision to ignore a cross party committee’s recommendation to abolish one-word Ofsted judgements is the wrong one.
The pressure that school leaders and teachers feel in relation to Ofsted inspectors is huge. And it is not just those two days in which the inspectors are physically in the school; the intensity of being on ‘red alert’ for an imminent inspection can be just as bad – if not worse – than the inspection itself, not least because that period of time can last months if not years. The tragic death of Ruth Perry was a dreadful yet timely reminder of the stress placed on school leaders, and while legislation made in response to a single specific incident is rarely good legislation, this is hardly a new issue.
For schools in areas where competition is high, the difference between ‘outstanding’ and ‘good’ can be perceived as huge in terms of attracting applications from prospective students. But in reality, the actual difference on the ground can be very little, if anything at all. One school leader told me that their school, which had been judged as outstanding for a number of years, was downgraded to ‘good’, despite receiving an outstanding grade on the majority of Ofsted’s criteria. The narrative of the actual report was almost unwaveringly positive and in many cases glowing. Of course, to the outside eye, the school had declined since its last inspection, when in reality it had maintained, if not improved on, its excellent standards. One of the sections in the report hailed the school’s highly impressive arts department, with plenty of extra-curricular drama and music opportunities on offer for the pupils. However, these do not fit particularly well into the rigidity of Ofsted’s marking criteria. Off the record, inspectors suggested that, had the school ‘played the game’ of chasing specific progress measures, they would probably have avoided being inspected and thus remained ‘outstanding’.
And here is the problem with the single-word judgements. It can only be based on very limited criteria, and this will rarely reflect the broad spectrum of curricular and extra-curricular options available at a school.
One of the main arguments put forward in favour of single-word judgements is that it makes things simpler for parents. This is debatable, but even if true, it is both patronising and misleading. Although not a parent myself, I know from speaking to those close to me who do have young children that schooling is one of their biggest priorities. It is something that parents think about before they even become parents. So to suggest that they may not have the time or inclination to read a few pages worth of information on local schools in the area is bizarre.
Besides, parents may have different priorities for their children. The somewhat notorious Michaela Community School is rated as outstanding by Ofsted, but despite undeniably excellent exam results, parents may not agree with their ultra-strict approach to discipline. A ‘good’ school with a more liberal approach, or one that focuses much more on practical or artistic subjects may be more appropriate (and vice versa). While the current system does allow for nuances to be addressed in the final report, the importance placed on that one single word by parents, schools and politicians is far too high, and will always be so for as long as that one word judgement remains.
A single-word judgement is not appropriate for a holistic approach to education. It can paper over cracks just as much as it can downplay achievements. Another teacher, tongue not entirely in cheek, suggested to me that if the government insists on continuing with the system of short, snappy summations of a school’s quality, this should be reduced to simply ‘fine’ or ‘not fine’. It is entirely understandable and right that where schools are falling below the required standard, these issues are addressed and that they are given the necessary guidance and assistance to achieve these standards. But most schools are, in fact, fine. There will be areas for improvement just as much as areas in which they excel, and it would be perfectly reasonable to expect an inspectorate to lay these out in a full report. Just as long as this nuanced analysis doesn’t get reduced to a single word that, for the next 4-6 years, determines the viability of that institution.
* David Gray is a musician, actor and writer based in Birmingham. He is a a co-director of Keep Streets Live
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
Geoff Reid
Margaret Pollus
David Raw
17 Comments
While very much agreeing with the article, I disagree!
‘Unsatisfactory’ is actually an apt, single word, description of the approach and remit of Ofsted.
Educational inspectors should make positive recommendations for which they should then be accountable. A later inspection would then include reference to the previous recommendations as well as the school or college’s delivery of education. Prior to Ofsted something like this was the norm and school’s were able to have a close relationship with the regional inspectorate.
Thank you for a disturbingly relevant article: a single word is insufficient to describe a banana accurately and to enable the potential banana eater make an informed choice.
Decent reports on human activities include the following types:
1) Criterion referencing- activities/functions in relation to aims and contexts
2) Ipsative referencing – performances of the same, compared with previous assessments/achievements
3) Norm referencing – comparison with others, irrespective of contexts and inspectoral inconsistencies
OFSTED only uses the last which is the least helpful, least relevant and the most oppressive: why?
Inspections are well differentiated between two poles:
a) the motivating formative
b) the intimidating judgemental
Alas , and so inefficiently, OFSTED majors ostentatiously and self indulgently on the latter.
OFSTED epitomises the unstated anti-social purposes of the 1988 Education Reform Act which commodified and marketised education as an end in itself and to fragment the relationships between our children/students and our teaching teams thus making them more subservient and controllable.
Decent/real education is concerned with relational well-being and the cooperative competition of knowledge, self and community informed exploration.
In a single word assessment, OFSTED single word assessments are ****!
It seems to me that the different philosophies between England and the other countries of the United Kingdom are widening year on year with measurable differences now evident. For example, school exclusions are increasing year on year in England but falling in Scotland – not because behaviour is not worsening in Scotland (BISSR research last year showed it is getting worse) but because of the different culture. While English schools exclude and then expel disruptive pupils, local authorities in Scotland are legally obliged to ensure that every child receives an education and any pupil being expelled from one school is actually just transferred by the council to a neighbouring school for a fresh start.
Scotland also has a different approach to inspections where any school getting a poor report will get a follow up inspection within 18 months to ensure necessary improvements have been made – no having to live with a poor inspection report for 5 or 6 years.
Martin, you refer to regional inspectorate. That implies inspectors having closer and more meaningful relationships with the schools so that the emphasis is on school improvement. EDSK (run by former government adviser on Education, Tom Richmond) produced a report on Ofsted in 2019 called ‘Requires improvement’. It strongly criticised Ofsted’s reports as inconsistent and inaccurate and not looking at the right things. One conclusion was to stop producing these short snappy judgments and have a one-page information card for parents.
When the current system of inspection was proposed a chief examiner said it was fundamentally flawed because it was separating inspection from support and improvement. EDSK research showed that 33% of primary and 58% of secondary schools declared ‘requires improvement’ did not subsequently improve. The whole system needs replacing as we said in our Education Motion at spring conference 2018. Unfortunately this was downgraded in 2022 Autumn conference to ‘reform’. Our party in its efforts to win over conservatives is in danger of losing its radical vision on education.
Imagine if, in any exam, a person was asked to describe a complex interactive system, and answered the question with one word..
There would probably be one word written, in red ink, underneath; INADEQUATE
The single word assessment is there to enable ranking of schools which is a proxy for selection. If a school is ranked above the surrounding schools, all parents will put it first so it effectively allows those schools to exclude more challenging pupils (or parents). Of course the genuinely excellent heads don’t have to take that option.
Lazy headlines which can mislead parents and shame school staff. Even led to schools being forced into academies when the problems were administrative and being addressed already. The emphasis must be on advice and guidance whilst not shying away from failures.
Whilst I agree that a one word ratin seems odd it took me less than 5 minutes on the OFSTED website to find the full history of OFSTED reports for my old high school. Also when I visited my old high school website I easily fould a link to the OFSTED report.
So if parents are relying on the one word outcome then parents have some responsibilty for not doing their research.
I agree that single-word Ofsted assessments should be binned.
Last year I was involved with updating our Parish Council’s “Welcome Pack”, containing useful information for newcomers to the village. (An idea, incidentally, which I commend to you.)
The local Primary school had an Ofsted rating of “Requires improvement”. I mentioned this to a fellow Parish Councillor who went ballistic, citing the excellent way in which the school had supported Ukrainian refugee children whose family lived with her. I read the whole assessment. It was nuanced, constructive and fair.
The only justification advanced for retaining one-word assessments is that they make choice easier for parents. Frankly, anyone who makes such an important decision based on a one-word label rather than a careful reading of the whole document should not be pandered to.
The school’s latest Ofsted, by the way, is Good. But not very much in the detail has actually changed. Not only are the one-word labels pandering to the lazy, they are actively misleading.
Neil,
I think you are directing some of your fire in the wrong direction, by being a bit too hard on some parents (and their children) in your post. Some parents are not at all good readers and I don’t think it is appropriate to say “Frankly, anyone who makes such an important decision based on a one-word label rather than a careful reading of the whole document should not be pandered to.”
Looking at reports on two nearby schools, I find a Flesch-Kincaid level of 7, which is stated to be above the reading level of 12% of the population. The problem isn’t parents, but politicians and bureaucrats who prefer a neat simple solution.
Neat, simple and wrong.
All the best,
David
Well checked out, Mr Evans!
Might a choice made on deliberately and absolutely minimised opinion, not be a valid choice but rather an arrogant put down and manipulation?
David,
On reflection, you are absolutely correct to say that I’m directing the fire in the wrong place.
There may be people who make a choice based on a one-word summary out of laziness; but you’re quite right to remind me that a lot of the population can’t read particularly fluently and are daunted by long documents couched in Civil Service English.
And I agree with you that the real problem is politicians (not so much “bureaucrats”, probably) who find it convenient to offer the illusion of choice and empowerment. We can agree, I think, that the “neat, simple solution” of the one-word assessment is “neat, simple and wrong”.
Thanks, anyway, for pulling me up.
“a lot of the population can’t read particularly fluently and are daunted by long documents couched in Civil Service English.”
Fair comment. And in my experience the ‘long documents in ‘Civil Service English’ isn’t confined to the public sector.
However the one-word summary covers several issues (https://www.schoolguide.co.uk/blog/ofsted-inspections-and-ratings-explained) –
quality of education
behaviour and attitudes
personal development
leadership and management
Mightn’t one plain English sentence for each of the above be a lot more helpful?
If school inspectors cannot write sentences in simple, plain English, they are not fit to inspect teachers and schools. In education it is a basic requirement.
A short summary in plain English of strengths, shortcomings and recommendations should accompany each inspection.
Well said, Martin Bennett. When I was a Head a fair few years ago it was common parlance that the teachers teach….. and the inspectors….. were former teachers that couldn’t.
A scurrilous rumour, no doubt, but with some essence of truth in it.
I like the idea of requiring a short summary in plain English.
One of the most dispiriting jobs that faces a Family Court judge is dealing with care proceedings where it’s quite likely that the parents won’t be able to make head or tail of a judgment taking their children away permanently. There are a number of instances on the BAILII website of judges taking the trouble (and displaying the respect) to add a summary in very basic English so that at least the parents stood a chance of understanding why the court decided as it did.
And indeed most if not all judgments of the Supreme Court are accompanied by a short Executive Summary.
Schools are different and who’s to say one is better than the other. As you say parents want different things. Presumably OFSTED inspections look at the likelihood of that school to give their children good exam results. This might matter more to some parents than others and to some pupils than others. A grading of satisfactory in this area would allow grading to enter other areas that might be of particular importance to that family. Perhaps there should be more movement of pupils between schools say after the first term.