Teach-Primary-Issue-19.3

Kevin Harcombe If Ofsted’s latest ridiculous framework weren’t so indescribably stupid and frustrating, it might just be funny... ‘The whole thing is a complete dog’s breakfast’ VO I C E S S implicity and clarity are wonderful things aren’t they? In an attempt to simplify their punitive system – no, honestly – Ofsted are suggesting eight or nine judgements (or possibly 10 or 11, I lost count) with five possible ratings for each. So many judgements, so little time. The ratings are colour-coded and based on a simple model – traffic lights. Hang on though, there are five colours in Ofsted’s ‘traffic light’ system. Last time I looked there were only three colours at my local junction but, hey, what do I know? Ofsted’s version begins with red (bad) and amber (attention needed). So far, so familiar. Then – get this! – light green, green, and dark green for secure, strong and exemplary. Whichever genius came up with this system is definitely red. At the very least they could have Farrow-and-Ball-ed the different shades with school-ap- propriate names: ‘This school’s assessment system is very much Overboiled Cabbage’ (light green), ‘teaching is Runny Nose’ (green), and ‘behaviour is Norovirus Nights’ (dark green). They say that a camel is ‘a horse designed by a committee’ and this proposed new framework has been designed by a less skilled committee than the camel one. Now that The Traitors has finished and there’s not much to watch on telly, I can heartily recommend the YouTube videos in which Sir Michael Oliver, HMCI, outlines the proposals and Lee Owston (national director for education) discusses how it works for teachers. Reader, neither convinced this viewer that this isn’t a complete dog’s breakfast, where the dog is bewildered and angry and the morning foodstuffs are previously digested stinking mush. In fact, if you watch the videos, you’ll agree they don’t seem very convinced themselves. They unveil a proposed ‘toolkit’ for teachers to prepare for inspection. To my mind ‘toolkits’ (and ‘workshops’) should only exist in light engineering. In schools, they just mean lots more paper and more stuff to do that stops teachers teaching the kids. An HMI explains, ’what we want to make sure with these toolkits is that we’re not adding further burden to providers by making them do something extra for Ofsted’. And then, without any irony or self-awareness, produces reams of paper densely typed over five columns. Voila! A kit by tools for tools! But if the proposals are bad for teachers, they are no better for inspectors. According to Schools Week , an anonymous Ofsted employee has written saying the proposals are ‘rushed and botched’ (coincidentally, the name of the law firm that will be suing Ofsted) while the consultation period is the shortest ever for a new framework and ‘will be a sham’. At least there will be no time for unloved Deep Dives, because inspectors will be engaged racing round the school building, possibly on rocket-powered e-scooters, to place ticks in the gazillion boxes the new system demands. It will be a veritable Supermarket Sweep of evidence-gathering, with inspectors racing against the clock, sparks and flames exploding from their overheating scooters, chucking bits of haphazard evidence into their inspectorial shopping trolley and then realising, too late, they’ve missed the best items. I once suggested to HMI that there should be just two simple categories – Good or Not Yet Good, with the ‘yet’ doing a lot of the heavy lifting; making schools feel slightly less wretched and possibly avoiding the sort of cataclysmic tragedy that befell Ruth Perry. After all, the proposals for safeguarding judgement are simply ‘met’ or ‘not met’. Most parents don’t read much beyond the first page of a report and just want to know whether their child is happy and safe and learning, and that teachers are more or less pretty ok at what they teach most of the time. This proposed framework is far too convoluted and will not survive contact with reality. Parents and schools deserve much better – hell, even the poor inspectors deserve better. It’s a ‘plan’, but only in the same way a bundle of papers is a ‘toolkit’. As a wise old boxer once sagely observed, “Everybody has a plan – till they get punched on the nose”. And with this proposal? Ofsted has smashed itself right on the hooter. TP Kevin Harcombe is former headteacher of Redlands Primary, Fareham. www.teachwire.net | 13