Steve Rollett, Deputy CEO, Confederation of School Trusts
Now
It was an interesting week for Ofsted. While most of social media focused on the goings on at the Tory party conference, a number of teachers and leaders spoke out last week about the revelation that Ofsted’s subject aide-memoirs seemed to be circulating ‘under the counter’ of our education system.
Understandably, some leaders were concerned about the lack of fairness – real or perceived – this seemed to embody and the worry that it might give some an advantage when an inspector calls. Others gave a slightly more optimistic reason for requesting their publication: that sharing the documents could be beneficial for schools seeking to improve their curriculum.
Ofsted has, of course, rightly pointed out that what is in the aide-memoirs is already reflected in its lengthier research reviews, but as we have been reminded, selection of content matters! What Ofsted has chosen to include in these summaries is, arguably, significant because of its inclusion.
Publishing these is not without risk, of course. Nobody wants to open the door to a new wave of aide-memoir fueled ‘mocksteds’ or superficial compliance which circumvents the development of high-quality curriculum thinking and practice, but the cat is already out of the bag - the resources are already circulating widely and leaders will need to treat them with the caution they demand. We must trust schools to do this.
It was disappointing, therefore, to read in Schools Week that Ofsted has refused to publish the aide-memoirs. On a purely practical level this decision is disappointing because it means they will continue to circulate on some sort of inequitable dark net of accountability (coming to a Dropbox near you soon, I would imagine). On a more emblematic level it is disappointing because I think many in the sector were hoping for, and expecting, a more collegiate response from the inspectorate. Indeed, its slightly paradoxical that so much of Ofsted’s treatment of curriculum has been driven by a sense of community - ‘the discipline’ - and yet it seems reluctant to expose its aide-memoir construct to a wider audience.
And this last point is perhaps worth lingering on a little further. One wonders if a more confident inspectorate would be less anxious about publishing these documents. I’m sure that part of Ofsted’s rationale is that it genuinely doesn’t want to drive adverse consequences in the system, but given these documents are already out there, could it also be because Ofsted feels some understandable anxiety about the reaction it might receive if they were to be published officially?
On that note, my twitter timeline this week has been full of various threads saying Ofsted has it wrong about a particular subject: it’s too narrow, it’s too focused on cognitive science, it’s ignored contrary research.
How concerned should we be about such criticism and what might it reveal about the future direction of Ofsted?
The future
I’ve written before that it’s almost impossible for Ofsted to issue any sort of judgement without having a conception of quality. And this stands in relation to the range of things that Ofsted currently inspects, including behaviour and leadership, not only curriculum. It was also the case for previous frameworks which placed a greater emphasis on data. A conception of quality is required in order to make a judgement.
We might take the view (as I do, on balance) that it is better we bring Ofsted’s conception of quality into the light rather than live under the illusion that it’s possible to inspect without one, and Ofsted has to its credit tried to do this with the EIF. This is why it seemed logical to me for Ofsted to publish the aide-memoirs: another step in the inspectorate’s ongoing conversation with the sector about its conception of quality.
But setting aside the question of whether Ofsted should publish the aide-memoirs, what if you look at its conception of curriculum quality and don’t like what you see?
This is a hard one to resolve. Ofsted would likely point to the evidence base and teams of experts it has assembled to support its position. Critics say the evidence base is, for some subjects at least, not fully reflective of the evidence or the views of all in the subject community.
Others have argued the conception of quality seems geared more towards a secondary model of education than our primary sector. It’s hard to resolve because the answer to these problems can’t always be arrived at scientifically, and it can’t always be demonstrated to be the definitively ‘right’ approach.
In summary, and to borrow a well-worn phrase, Ofsted has ‘placed a bet’ on its conception of quality. Others might want them to place a different one.
So, what should be done? Some will say this apparent lack of curriculum consensus is proof that Ofsted’s venture into inspecting the curriculum is fundamentally flawed, that it just can’t be done. But even if we accept this premise (and I’m not sure I do) is there a better alternative?
There is a view among some that the pendulum has swung too far towards curriculum design as an ‘input’ indicator of quality and that ‘output’ indicators (achievement data) should return to a sharper focus. Ofsted would argue that outcomes have not left the EIF (it’s part of the third "I ” in the quality of education), but this is not a view shared by all in the sector.
That said, we should also remember that significant concerns were expressed by some leaders about the previous framework, where the conception of quality was largely driven by outcomes data, including internal data that was of questionable validity for the purposes of inspection.
Clearly, there are different views in the sector about how far the inspection framework should be shaped by inputs or outputs. At either extreme of this dichotomy there is likely to be distortion, so perhaps the resolution is more about finding balance and a centre ground rather than emphasizing one more than the other. The furore over the aide-memoirs this past week suggests that the perception is that the ‘input’ (curriculum design) is king. Whether this is the ‘right’ option is hard to assess without properly thinking about the purpose(s) we want inspection to serve – more on this later.
Proponents of wholesale reform of Ofsted (or indeed its complete abolition) occasionally imply that dissatisfaction with the current framework is universal. That’s not my experience. Yes, there are critics, but there are many supporters too. We must listen to both.
Others will say that Ofsted should be restricted to a compliance model, one that merely checks schools are following particular laws and regulations, and that it mustn’t walk in areas of contestation (such as curriculum). But if we’re to make this case we must be aware there is potentially a loss too. A group of particular concern here is parents, who according to some research say they find Ofsted’s judgements of quality to be useful. In a world of compliance inspection how do we fill that gap for parents, or do we ignore it entirely? At what cost?
And we must consider such a model from the pupil’s perspective too. It’s plausible that a school could tick all the boxes of a slimmer compliance-driven inspection methodology and yet be providing a lower standard of education than we would want for pupils. Without the insight afforded by a quality judgement, would the system have the information it needs to act in the interests of children?
Thinking in big concepts, not big headlines
I’ve been part of many discussions about the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of school inspection reform. But most of these conversations have been impoverished by the tendency to start from the mechanics of the inspection process, because this is the bit we tend to feel most acutely: "If inspectors did X”, or, "If judgements focused on Y”, or, "If the framework said Z” – or more recently, "If the aide-memoirs said…” There comes a point when these things have to be considered, of course, but they are not where discussions about reform should begin.
Rather, our starting point should be closer to: "What purpose(s) do we need inspection to fulfill?”, closely followed by"What actions do we want to occur as a result of inspection?” And we should consider these through a range of lenses, from stakeholders to regulators. This opens the space for us to lay it all out and to think about inspection systematically and coherently. For example, it opens up the space for us to think about whether and how inspection of School Trusts should become a more significant part of the system. And we can test thinking about the role, benefits and risks of graded judgements, because their value is surely dependent on the purposes we expect them to fulfill.
This is an area where we commonly see muddled thinking. For example, some argue that Ofsted should play a direct role in offering improvement advice to schools. But what is the relationship between this and the judgements inspections currently provide? Is it tenable to have the inspectorate issuing advice to schools one minute and then dropping into school the next to judge how well their own advice has played out? There are clear risks in setting up an inspectorate that effectively marks its own homework. And that’s without getting into who is accountable if an individual inspector’s advice has an adverse impact on a school. It’s easy to see one part of this picture and think it makes sense, only to discover it’s much more problematic when you view it as a system.
This is why fundamental questions about purpose and intended actions are so important. They are a much more interesting and powerful set of questions than simply "What should Ofsted’s next framework look like?”
This is one reason why CST has been keen to open up a system-wide discussion about regulation. The facets of inspection should not be seen as isolated activities. Rather, we must view them as part of a properly conceived regulatory system, where inspection provides the required insight to support proportionate and effective regulatory activity.
We may need to recognize too the inherent complexity involved. There may be no perfect option – and this includes not having inspection – so the goal may be to settle on an approach with the best balance of pros and cons.
It feels like the experiences of the past couple of years, including Covid-19 and the current political landscape, make it more likely that inspection reform might re-emerge as a big-ticket policy debate in the system over the next year or two. It seems likely that at least one of the main political parties would seek reform of some kind.
My hope is that if there is to be a debate about inspection, we seek first to ask the right questions instead of leaping to piecemeal policy proposals. And to be clear, this isn’t an unambitious position. We’ve seen many frameworks come and go since Ofsted’s inception, but how often do policy makers really think deeply about its purposes and coherence?
It’s relatively easy to focus on the aide-memoirs, the mechanics of a framework, the length of inspections, the notice period, the use of data and so on. It’s harder, and potentially much more ambitious, to think about the purpose and system coherence of inspection. This is the work that needs to be done first if the debate does indeed turn towards Ofsted reform in the future.
The CST Blog welcomes perspectives from a diverse range of contributors. The opinions expressed in blogs are the views of the author(s), and should not be read as CST guidance or CST’s position.
