Recently, my children's school was Ofsted inspected. The inspection focused on three very specific areas. Other aspects of the school 'were not investigated in detail' the inspectors' report said and so the school's own assessments 'were included where appropriate' in the report.
I haven't read the school's own assessments. I don't think they are in the public domain. So it is impossible for me to distinguish between the inspectors' words and the words of the school's senior management. For all I know anything from 1% to 99% of the inspectors' report may be the school's own report simply regurgitated and rubber-stamped by Ofsted.
In some ways, this doesn't matter. Our school is a reasonably good state primary school and should be capable of producing a reasonably balanced and thorough self evaluation.
But I can't see any positive value in this kind of school inspection. It won't help a school highlight areas of weakness and find ways to improve them, because of the intense pressure on schools to impress the inspectors. A school's standing is hugely affected by its Ofsted rating. Parents can be influenced by Ofsted reports. Schools broadcast their outstanding grades with pride - try Googling joy at outstanding ofsted grade. So it is in a school's interests to gloss over its failings and present as slick and positive an image to the inspectors as it can. That way, it's more likely to get a glowing report and the best possible grade.
Ironically, the thought process behind reliance on school's own self-evaluation is positive: Ofsted has recognised the need 'to trust schools more and to draw on the professionalism of teachers' in their inspections. But the system is flawed. There is a reliance on an organisation's self-evaluation while simultaneously putting pressure on it to impress.
A school's self-assessment will have been produced with that pressure very clearly in mind; and by echoing back the school's self-assessment within an official report, the inspectors give it formal validity. There is a danger that this system encourages complacency and self-satisfaction, and positively discourages a more self-critical approach.
But I can't see any positive value in this kind of school inspection. It won't help a school highlight areas of weakness and find ways to improve them, because of the intense pressure on schools to impress the inspectors. A school's standing is hugely affected by its Ofsted rating. Parents can be influenced by Ofsted reports. Schools broadcast their outstanding grades with pride - try Googling joy at outstanding ofsted grade. So it is in a school's interests to gloss over its failings and present as slick and positive an image to the inspectors as it can. That way, it's more likely to get a glowing report and the best possible grade.
Ironically, the thought process behind reliance on school's own self-evaluation is positive: Ofsted has recognised the need 'to trust schools more and to draw on the professionalism of teachers' in their inspections. But the system is flawed. There is a reliance on an organisation's self-evaluation while simultaneously putting pressure on it to impress.
A school's self-assessment will have been produced with that pressure very clearly in mind; and by echoing back the school's self-assessment within an official report, the inspectors give it formal validity. There is a danger that this system encourages complacency and self-satisfaction, and positively discourages a more self-critical approach.
The inspectors' report for our school stated that there was 'no evidence' to contradict the school's own assessments. That's great; but out of interest what constitutes 'evidence'? What would have happened if they had found any? Would they have had to investigate further? Would that have thrown out their schedules? Have they got a vested interest in accepting the school's assessments at face value? You bet they have! Nice school, all okay, job done, on to the next one...
In which case, what is the point of it all? My biggest question is: do schools need to be inspected so much and so often? If the school is clearly capable of making its own comprehensive and generally accurate self-assessments, why do external inspectors need to keep coming round every couple of years anyway? Let the schools just get on with it - they would be able to produce a more honest and full report for themselves that they can then work on unimpeded by Ofsted.
Final point, the school was judged as outstanding in all the areas that the inspectors didn't look at closely. I have no idea whether it is outstanding or just good, but how can the inspectors be sure of it when they weren't actually looking? Meanwhile, a friend of mine who is a childminder got Ofsted inspected recently. She was judged as 'outstanding' in absolutely everything except one very tiny thing - she hadn't produced a written complaints procedure. So she was judged overall as 'good'. She childminds for goodness sake! She's fantastic at it! And they've marked her down as 'good' because of one piece of paper! And yet a whole school in charge of the education of two hundred children gets 'outstanding' for whole areas they aren't actually looking at. Where's the consistency in that?
