John Bald Ofsted and New Labour

Hypocrisy

Ofsted is nothing if not versatile. See this interview with the Chief Inspector in today's Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2652667/Ive-seen-how-a-poor-teacher-can-turn-a-child-off-learning-says-Ofsteds-Christine-Gilbert.html

Of course, no responsibility is accepted or hinted at for Ofsted's role in condoning poor teaching simply by not inspecting teaching any more. On the inspection I took part in under the new framework, HMI told an inpsector to ignore an unsatisfactory lesson because it did not fit the priorities of the inspection. Ofsted is important here, because an Ofsted inspector is a trained observer, with no axe to grind over the internal relationships within a school - observation that is not properly monitored can be a bully's charter. By not doing its job properly, Ofsted is making it more difficult to remove poor teachers, much to the delight of the NUT, which goes all out to defend them.

The hypocrisy here is spectacular - the Chief Inspector says parents and parent governors should be the ones to put pressure on schools, when they do not have the professional skills to do this effectively, and she has. Yet another disgraceful abdication of responsibility, tempered only by deceit and news management. The Telegraph should hire someone who is prepared to ask harder questions.

Why governors should not trust Ofsted

A school inspector, and particularly a member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, can be a daunting figure for governors, but they need to look below the surface. To begin with, far from being the highest flyers, Her Majesty's Inspectors are now generally younger people on the way up, and are likely to be less experienced and well qualified than a school deputy headteacher. They are certainly paid less, though they still have the badge of office to compensate for this.

Before 2005, inspectors met governors before, during and after the inspection, and reported back to them. They don't any more. Governors are treated as a cypher in the inspection process, not even worth talking to, let alone taking questions from. Why? Because Ofsted wants its view to be the only one current, and no more wants independent thinking from governors than from anybody else.

The danger comes when an inspector, or an ignoramus from the ministry (ignorant person + bureaucrat = ignocrat) fails a school he or she has scarcely seen, and governors lose confidence in the head as a result. It happens all the time, and it is a short-circuit of responsibility. Ofsted has its own agenda, a political rather than an educational agenda. It can't sack a head, but governors who take notice of it can, hence the brutal ending of perfectly good careers at the hands of people who lack the experience, evidence and professional qualities to make such judgements.

If Ofsted won't take any notice of governors, governors should not take any notice of Ofsted - except, of course, where its judgements can be confirmed from reliable sources.