Teach Secondary 14.4

First things first Ofsted may have tried to improve inspectors’ interpersonal skills, but its inspections are still undercut by some longstanding issues, says Adrian Lyons ... A few years back, when I was still an HM Inspector. Ofsted had been seeking a new tagline, and eventually settled on the phrase, ‘ A force for improvement .’ I suggested at the time that the word ‘force’ might carry the wrong connotation – this being an era in which even the Police were shifting towards the language of service, rather than force. It seemed tone-deaf. I therefore proposed, ‘ A service for improvement ’ – but my suggestion fell on deaf ears. Back then, Ofsted was still positioning itself as a no-nonsense disrupter eager to make its presence felt. Deeper issues Fast forward to 2024, and the winds appeared to be shifting once again. Following the coroner’s damning verdict into the tragic death of headteacher Ruth Perry – which cited an Ofsted inspection as a contributing factor – the regulator responded by signalling a softer, more empathetic tone. The arrival of Sir Martyn Oliver as HM Chief Inspector in January of that year had beenmarked by ABOUT THE AUTHOR Adrian Lyons was one of His Majesty’s Inspectors between 2005 and 2021 and now works with MATs, teacher training providers and LAs to support education; find out more at adrianlyonsconsulting.com a pause in inspections, allowing lead inspectors to receive basic training in mental health awareness. This initiative was then revisited the following autumn, via a 100-minute training session titled ‘Setting Off on the Right Foot.’ The core messages at this session included: •Build positive relationships with school leaders and staff from the start •Apply mental health awareness to alleviate stress and anxiety during inspections •Reflect on how inspection practice can support the wellbeing of schools and inspectors alike These were – and still are – noble aims, but they only scratch the surface of much deeper cultural and structural issues. Two problems in particular remain unaddressed – the pressure to meet unrealistic inspection targets, and the continued use of cliff-edge judgements (high stakes decisions that can alter a school’s trajectory). Now, despite calls for reform, the latter is set to actually see more use as of next summer. An impossible position Many inspectors find themselves expected to deliver decisive evaluations under rigid time frames, while also being mindful of the emotional toll their very presence has on school staff. In this context, it’s perhaps no surprise that some inspectors avoid issuing lower grades altogether. Anecdotally – albeit backed up by analysis of recent grade profiles – there’s growing concern that fear of a backlash has compromised the reliability of inspection outcomes. One former colleague recently recounted two troubling cases in which respected inspectors were removed after the first day of inspection for being ‘too negative’. They were replaced withmore ‘amenable’ inspectors – at the schools’ request – and left unpaid for the second day, having already incurred travel and accommodation expenses. Professional conduct When talking to colleagues about this variability between inspectors, the phrase ‘pot luck’ comes up. One MAT leader I work with had high hopes when one of his strongest schools came up for inspection, its strength consistently confirmed by internal and external reviews. So it came as a shock when, by the end of day 1, the lead inspector signalled a possible ‘Requires Improvement’ (Grade 3) for Quality of Education. This unpredictability speaks to a fundamental weakness of the current system– the lack of robust assurance that schools will receive a fair and consistent inspection experience. Ofsted does operate a system of on-site quality assurance visits, but these are hampered by unrealistic inspection schedules that stretch HMI capacity too thin. High turnover among HMIs has additionally depleted the expertise needed for effective quality assurance. Finally, the evaluation criteria for inspections places minimal emphasis on professional conduct. Out of five criteria, only one (briefly) touches on whether a lead inspector’s integrity and professionalism reflects Ofsted’s values. As Dame Christine Gilbert’s 2024 learning review of Ofsted made clear (see tiny.cc/ ts144-O1), Ofsted expects accountability and transparency from schools during inspections – yet provides none to its staff or its leadership in return. 43 teachwire.net/secondary O F S T E D