Ofsted Dumbed Down

New Labour came to power full of good intentions about educations, backed by strategies, as if reforming education were goal, with objectives, like military objectives, on the way, that could be achieved by attacking key points. Literacy was an obvious one, and so was ICT and EAL. The senior advisor in charge of these strategies ran them past me before they went to press, and I suggested that ICT be added. He snapped his fingers and agreed. Standards, NuLab thought, needed to be raised, and what was needed was the will and the means. At the same time, we needed what was called "joined up government", so that the efforts of, say, education, were not undermined by people in social services who didn't believe in achievement.

But then the snags hit in. Raising standards was harder than the govenment had thought, because schools were only part of the process - the attitudes of large numbers of parents, who did not subscribe to the educational agenda, seriously limited the capacity of many schools to improve. Targets were missed. Getting the required numbers to achieve 5 GCSEs was difficult if not impossible, despite the contribution of overvalued vocational courses, which no-one honestly believes are worth 4 GCSEs each.The government, moreover, was committed to improving schools, while Ofsted's rigorous approach, which would not allow a school to be graded excellent if a key area was no more than satisfactory, was showing up too many flaws. New Labour had enough problems without the truth coming into the picture - in this case, the truth that schools are human institutions, subject to economic and social factors beyond their control, so that, from around 2000 to 2004, many in the outer London area had serious problems attracting staff.

New Ofsted set out to tackle a lot of these problems at once. Or, rather, the way they were presented. First, the mission statement "Improving Education through Inspection" was replaced by "Better Education and Care", the first step towards amalgamating education with social services. Then, the empahasis on educational standards was gradually modified, so that, when the Every Child Matters agenda was published - and of  course, every child does matter - achievement was only half of one of five headings. Every Child Matters was to be the basis of the new system, to the extent that, at the training session I attended, it was proposed that we could inspect a school without seeing any lessons at all. A protest against this nonsense was met with a patronising nod and a smile.

Ofsted was not to inspect subjects, so an unsatisfactory subject - even no provision in a subject - would not spoil the party. Ofsted was not even to inspect teaching - in the secondary inspection in which I took part, an inspector who saw an unsatisfactory history lesson was told to ignore it. Where teaching was seen, the criterion of excellence was fudged with elements of teaching that was simply good. Excellent teaching was no longer picked out in the report and described in detail. At the other end, a lesson that didn't work, and might have to be graded unsatisfactory, with guidance on how to improve it, was not distinguised from one that was very poor. An example of a very poor lesson, which I saw in a failing school, was a drama teacher who was sent into a physics class and did not know a thing about physics, because no one was available. The children, in the term before their GCSEs, were not being taught physics, and hadn't been for a term. It wasn't the school's fault, it wasn't the teacher's fault - I explained the position to her, and neither of us took it personally - but the children were not getting what they deserved. Under the new system, this lesson probably would not have been seen at all.

And then the inspectors themselves. There are many good inspectors still in the system, and they work properly. But at an early stage in David Bell's tenure, a large number of new HMI were appointed, each of whom had, as part of the process, to write an essay on "inclusion".  Like many others, I had grave doubts about "inclusion" as practised by New Labour. It is a good idea, but can involve schools being pressured into tolerating poor behaviour that interferes with other children's learning.  At the same time, the salary for HMI was set at the level of an assistant headteacher - almost all primary deputy heads in London, and most of those outside London, are now paid more than HMI. Secondary heads are paid double, so no successful secondary head will consider the post. The result is that HMI are no longer the powerful and independent figures they once were, but younger people, who often see this as a stepping stone to headship. As a former staff HMI said to me, "There's no career in it now".  It is no criticism of individual HMI to say that they are no longer the top professionals in the country.

Overall, Ofsted has replaced rigour with policy, bringing it into line with the lowered standards in examinations, the fudged tests results and the con trick of providing a "university" education that pushes students through courses without the individual support needed for their intellectual development. It is, of course, a disgrace, but retains the shell of competence and authority developed by HMI over a century and a half. Just don't look for intellect, and be grateful that individual inspectors still have integrity.