This week, my post will be as current as a blog is supposed to be.
It was announced, on Friday 19th June, that about 1,400 Ofsted inspectors have been dismissed because they are not up to standard - much like the schools and colleges they have already rated as sub-standard!
Ofsted, the government's education inspectorate, has always been a refuge for failed teachers. I have witnessed three Ofsted inspectors giving 'model' lessons, and they were all as inspiring as a crematorium. The inspectors ticked all the boxes but were disgracefully tedious teachers.
Who inspects the inspector? Teaching is usually referred to as a profession. Would doctors and lawyers tolerate being inspected, let alone by lesser talented people?
The whole notion of an inspectorate is unknown in other countries. Belgium and The Netherlands have no school inspectors at all. As the Dutch Education Minister said:
"Schools are transparent places. We don't need an inspector to tell us where we can improve. Each school deals with its own problems, which are obvious to all in the school."
Ofsted is an insult to both teachers and students. Worse still is the political agenda behind Ofsted's grading of schools. I have personally known of three schools and one college that went from the highest grade - 'outstanding' - to the lowest grade - 'special measures' - in the space of a year, when almost nothing had changed in the schools or the college. Many teachers I have spoken to agree that too often, Ofsted inspectors enter a school, having already decided what grade the school will get. Of course, they never reveal this openly, but one can tell when an inspector is out to find the maximum faults rather than best practice.
My other gripe with Ofsted is that their judgements are based mainly on the academic success of its students, when, as any sentient soul knows, the curriculum is as narrow, cerebral and inconsequential as you can get.
The most impressive story I have heard about an Ofsted inspector, was of an occasion when the inspectors swooped on Summerhill School, where lessons are non-compulsory. At the end of the three day inspection, one of the inspectors asked Zoe Neill, the head, if she could join the staff of the school, so impressed was she with the whole ethos of the place. A rare exception.
The announcement in the news this week presented an open goal for our tenacious blogger. I'm pleased to observe he sunk the ball deep into the net. I could let my breathing deepen over the phrase "disgracefully tedious". Instead I looked up what the hell Ofsted stands for:
ReplyDeleteThe “home page” begins with a piece of writing that is tediously bureaucratic and – please correct me if I’m wrong – in error in what it means to say in the second sentence of the second paragraph. That, indeed, is disgraceful! My heart sinks. I look forward to our blogger’s next attempt at a home run.
Here’s the beginning of the Ofsted home page. Ghastly writing!
“Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. We inspect and regulate services that care for children and young people, and services providing education and skills for learners of all ages.
Every week, we carry out hundreds of inspections and regulatory visits throughout England and publish the results online. We help providers that are not yet of good standard to improve, monitor their progress and share with them the best practice we find.
Our goal is to achieve excellence in education and skills for learners of all ages, and in the care of children and young people.
We report directly to Parliament and we are independent and impartial.”
A quick postscript to my comment. I eat humble pie!
ReplyDeleteHow easy it is to be hoisted with one's own petard! When I mentioned this blog to my partner over a cup of tea - in particular how awful Ofsted seems to be - I heard myself say "dreadfully tedious". Tedious is tedious. It doesn't need to be underlined with an adverb. We often do this. I am no exception! It's not wrong. It's unnecessary.
Dear Hugh,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments on my blog.
I did not write 'dreadfully tedious' but 'disgracefully tedious'. I disagree about qualifying 'tedious'. There are shades of tedium and besides, it is a disgrace for a teacher to be so boring, hence 'disgracefully tedious'.
I must pick you up on using 'sunk' instead of 'sank'. A common error.
I have to admit I don't know what you mean when you say 'next attempt at a home run'.
I know you did not write “dreadfully tedious”. I never said you did!
DeleteI believe that sunk used to be the past tense of sink, but it is not used in that sense now. I stand corrected!
“Home run” is a baseball term. I was comparing your successful swipe at Ofsted with the mighty hit of a baseball player, who then sets off to make a complete circuit of the bases. Mr Coleridge pops up and queers the pitch!
The verb sink is an irregular verb and has been thus for centuries:
Deletesink - sank (past tense) - sunk (past participle)