This appears to be the transcript of an exchange following a joint observation between an inpsector and a primary head. We only have one side, but it suggests that the inspector is basing his judgement on some idea of an ideal lesson derived from the strategies rather than on the current handbook. We'd need to have been there to be sure, but it did cause me some disquiet.
In particular, the inspector should have checked on pupils' previous work, which must have been available, and would have given firm evidence on whether there was genuine progress or just repetition. As it stands, this is an unsatisfactory observation as the inspector relied on impression rather than checking the evidence, and also seems to have come close to bullying the head into agreeing with him. Basing a judgement on a supposition rather than evidence is poor inspection practice, and browbeating the head into agreeing with it makes it worse. The Secretary of State said in The Times on Monday that the consistency of inspection needs to be improved, and this seems to be a case in point.
Meantime, the Ofsted report on York University's training partnership has been published, and raises some new issues. The previous report, in 2010, was on the university only, and was graded 1. This report includes the schools in the partnership, and is graded 2, partly because of inconsistencies in the work of the schools, which now carry out the bulk of the work and which need, in the case of languages, to take more account of HMI findings. For some, a starting point would be to read the HMI reports in the first place.