I've noticed a lot of fully justified complaining about the methodologies Ofsted apply to their inspections and teachers constantly upset, demoralised and outraged at the whole process. And yet I hear very few comments that actually question the legitmacy of Ofsted. I think when one looks at these kind of questions interesting answers begin to appear. Now, I am no expert, but from what I can gather - the goverment appoint the Head of Ofsted. They are funded by central government. They decide the criteria of what consitutes a good and bad school. They are almost wholly unaccountable. Their approach has changed somewhat - become shorter, ahem, cheaper. I would be interested in correlating this new approach with their funding of the past few years! Has it remained constant? I have been through several Ofsteds and never enjoyed or felt satisfied by the experience - despite, for the most part, being on the end of some overflattering panegyrics. I am constantly frustrated that I have no say over the shape of Ofsted or their approach. I, of course, believe wholeheartedly in the fact that schools shouldn't be completely autonomous and should have to answer to somebody. I don't believe that person should be Ofsted though - not in their current form. Recent Labour leader candidate John McDonnell had within his policies a desire to reconstiute Ofsted in a supporting and advisory capacity. It sounded like a good idea. The present system isn't though and I am sick and tired of it and of encountering schools who are de facto run by Ofsted i.e. the obsequious Head compeletely subordinated to the whims of a highly politicised organisation. What do other people think? What should the alternative look like?