Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Ofsted inspections' started by rosehill16, Nov 29, 2012.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38926<font size="3"> </font>
Well I was going to sign it but it doesn't highlight the worst things about inspection. The 4 areas of complaint are actually strengths of the current framework and not things we would necessarily complain abou. I'm going to have a good old rant about this so bear with me...
The current system is punitive rather than supportive
Not to schools judged to meet the minimum standard, which is 'good'. Just read the reports. They glow with celebration and actually have very few negative (punitive) comments in them. Of course Grade 3 and Grade 4 reports are critical, but then why shouldn't they be if the minimum standard hasn't been achieved.
it fails to
So schools placed in SM stay in SM forever? erm no. Most come out after 18 months and some sooner. Many become good after 2 years. Far fewer schools are now grade 4 than they were 4 years ago
the quality control mechanisms are insufficiently
This might be true, but nobody really knows for certain yet because the new slimmed down QA systems only started in September. There's not been any evaluation of it yet so how can we complain about it?
it fails to ensure accuracy of data on which the inspections
This statement is flawed on so many levels. Doesn't this depend on the phase? For infant, all the data comes from teacher assessments, for junior it is partly external and partly teacher and for KS4 it is external. Is it Ofsted's job to moderate teacher assessments? At KS2 and 4 the transition matrices make adjustments for any national anomalies (e.g. GCSE English) in any given year anyway so the statement is utter nonsense.
The current framework is far fairer than the dreaded 2009 framework where schools with low attainment found it almost impossible to reach above a grade 3 overall effectiveness. Now achievement is very heavily weighted on progress. You only have to look at the reports of those schools and see how many have gone from grade 3 to grade 2.
If we're going to make a noise about Ofsted, then complain about something real like:
1. Why, oh why does the framework place so much emphasis and importance on governance? The fate of the leadership and management grade rests very largely on whether some well-meaning amateurs can be bothered getting involved and asking the right questions... madness!
2. Parent view is a total and utter waste of time. Parental views are not properly taken into account now because responses to parent view are pitifully low and very often not representative of the views of all parents. Those who have a gripe will bother to register and make an entry.
3. The self evaluation form always used to be the centrepiece of inspections. The current framework doesn't take it into account as much, which is a backward step. It means the school is not a well involved in the inspection
4. Pre inspection information is far worse than it used to be. Now, inspectors cannot talk to the head about self evaluation or data prior to arrival on site. This, along with no PIB means the school cannot prepare any arguments to support its self evaluation. If the school looks like it might go into a category, the lead inspector used to be able to warn the school, but this is no longer possible. Also if this was the case, it would be spelled out on the PIB so the school could fully digest it before the team arrived.
5. The current framework is very, very vague about the EYFS; arguably the most important phase in education. Actually the present framework is very detailed on secondary school areas : early entry for GCSE, off site provision which perhaps gives away the background and interests of HMCI. Also primary reading seems to have gone off the boil. There is no requirement now for reading attainment to be reported for example.