John Bald/language and literacy

Ofsted's English research review, and "Whole Phonics". An error.

I am concerned that the view of phonics in this report goes beyond the limits of evidence and endorses "whole phonics". The very existence of the term "grapho-phoneme correspondence" shows that phonics will not tell a child all they need to know in order to read a word.  We teach children that letters represent a sound, and that they blend these to read a word, as in c-a-t. This depends on the letters and sounds being in the same order. When they are not, as in table, the child can't blend. When a child finds a letter indicating a sound .it does not normally indicate, the child has no means of knowing whether it indicates the normal sound, or not, unless they have already learned the word. Eg, was.

The truth is, as Byrne in Castles et al showed, that phonics establishes the alphabetic principle - that we read words from their letters. This principle works in different ways in different languages, eg in French the very large number of silent letters used for grammatical connections.  In English, mostly from French and Saxon influxes, some phonics are derived from other languages, so that phonics tells us most, but not all we need to know. Until this fact is recognised and understood,teachers following official guidance will continue to present phonics in  a way that is both too simple, and too complex. Too simple, because it does not always work. Too complex, because giving lists of possible correspondences and expecting children to memorise and select the appropriate one is inconsistent with what we know of the development of their young minds.

Other aspects of the English review are excellent. This is an error. I've had no reply to attempts to raise the issue directly with Ofsted. The alternative is on this site. 

Great Yarmouth Charter and Primary Academies.

To Great Yarmouth Charter Academy to keep a long-standing promise to visit Barry Smith, whose innovative and dynamic approach to a school in deep trouble continues to make headlines. From my observation of Barry’s teaching at Michaela, his forthright talk to the Conservative Education Society, and the school’s Ofsted report on behaviour, I expected to be impressed. I was not prepared to be astonished.

Two beautiful seventeenth-century statues of a poor boy and girl at the entrance set the tone – there is a strong tradition of education in the town, reflected in the adjacent display of the smart school uniform, with its rather strange badge – a combination of a lion and a fish. Reception is bright, immaculate, and decorated with a display of tributes from visitors that continues right along the corridor. Staff are happy and friendly to visiting parents. I meet the caretaker, delighted at no longer fighting a losing battle against vandalism, and a cover supervisor, who can now work without fear of insult and violence. I’ve not met such spontaneous expressions of support and appreciation of a headteacher in my forty-six years in education.

He arrives a few minutes late and we set off at a brisk pace, greeting each pupil and member of staff as we pass – quick eye contact, smile, “Good morning sir,” – Barry calls pupils “sir” or “ladies” as well as staff. No-one is ignored. I compliment him on his suit, and he shows me the label – Gieves and Hawkes. He says “Same as Prince Charles. I tell the pupils that it’s nice to have money and nice things. I want them to have jobs they enjoy and that will give them this. My mother would always say, ‘No good being poor and looking poor’”.

First stop is Fadilla Bettahar’s French class, who are using past, present, and future tenses in answer to her questions after just a term and a half of French. Bettahar has worked with Barry at Michaela, where she had a notice on her door informing pupils that “Vous n’êtes pas ici pour massacrer la langue de Molière”. And indeed they don’t, using simple French sentences with accurate pronunciation and understanding. M. Forgeron (French for Smith) does not have them stand up when he enters the room, but sits quietly at the front, joining in at an appropriate moment in a way that creates common ground with the teacher, without pulling rank.

Unlike Sir Michael Wilshaw, he does not see himself, and is not seen, as a sergeant-major. Discipline – removing eye make-up for girls – has a light touch. “It can look nice, but it’s not for school,” says Smith, mentioning a detention that evening if they don’t accept his offer of immediate help from a female teacher in removing it. He makes jokes against himself in a way that enlists his own personality as a teaching aid. It is raining heavily, and upper and lower schools gather in two halls for wet break, in the same friendly and relaxed atmosphere that I’d seen at Michaela. The pupils are happy to talk to me, and, like the staff, are full of unprompted praise for Smith, who has stopped the bullying that had made their lives a misery. Pupils with special needs, including one who has recently joined the school after being made homeless, are particularly keen on this, and on the opportunities they now have for learning.

I did not hear a raised voice during my visit, except for the loud recitation of poems learned by heart as pupils moved between classes. These include Ozymandias, If, Henry V’s speech before Harfleur and, most enthusiastically of all, William Ernest Henley’s Invictus, which embodies the Charter spirit more than any other. Staff join in with enthusiasm, including a member of the caretaking staff, working hard on the Henry V speech. The point is not to instil imperialism, but to extend language, much as nursery rhymes do with pre-school children. Staff at GYCA understand language as the foundation of literacy, and pupils in all classes learn to speak clearly, confidently, and in complete sentences. Incomplete sentences are rephrased by teachers and practised.

Coastal towns are not easy places in which live and work. Recruitment and retention of skilled staff is difficult, although we can hope that, once word gets around that this is a school with real professional opportunities for teachers who really know, and want to teach, their subject, this will change. Barry is currently looking for a head of maths, and, if I were qualified and forty years younger, I’d be knocking his door down. Metaphorically, of course.

In the afternoon, I visited Great Yarmouth Primary Academy, which had an inadequate rating from Ofsted immediately before Christmas, citing, among other weaknesses, persistent disruption to lessons. Expecting the worst, I was once again astonished. The headteacher, who, with his deputy, had taken up his position in January, had, in eight weeks, established exactly the same atmosphere as at Charter, with the same emphasis on behaviour and politeness – greetings and handshakes – throughout the building. In only one class had the teacher to use agreed procedures to “re-set” it, to establish the behaviour that would enable him to teach and the children to learn. The teaching I saw was focused on clear explanations to pupils, who sat facing the teacher rather than each other, with new vocabulary repeated and practised so that it did not wash over them. Children reading in the library were calm and focused. Happy teachers, happy pupils, learning restored. William Ernest Henley would have understood.

Institutionalised fraud and its endorsement by flawed inspection procedures. Updated

The senior leadership in a grammar school will not accept the submission of any controlled assessment that is below a student’s target grade. It does not much care how this is achieved, and its management and leadership are rated outstanding by Ofsted. This is an endorsement of institutionalised fraud.

The German assessments of a school near me (not in my village) are rewritten by the teacher, and memorised by the students for replication the next morning. The same text is recited for oral examinations. The students have been taught no grammar, so cannot compose a sentence for themselves. This  is fraud, and a senior Ofsted official has said that it is so prevalent he can do nothing about it.  Update: Two more cheating methods prevalent in controlled assessment, told to me on Monday by a teacher who had been encouraged to use them by management (he did not specify whether senior management or head of department - leaving material on the board, for pupils to copy from, and giving two to three times the allocated time for an assessment. Neither of these practices would be detectable under current Ofsted arrangements.

Meantime, one of the best German departments in the country has had its worst results in ten years, because it does not cheat.

Until we have honest exams, we cannot rely on any Ofsted report. In the meantime, these practices need to be exposed and rooted out.

This Secret Teacher article from The Guardian has a detailed view from inside a school. It is, of course, anonymous, but think of the professional consequences for the author if he or she had decided to sign it.

The Comedy of School Inspection

After so much time with Ofsted, I found myself last week in the company of two real inspectors. The first was the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor WS (Writer to the Signet, an ancient Scottish society of solicitors) and the second, Gervase Phinn.  Sir Thomas had written a well-argued and very hard-hitting report on the Met’s ramshackle arrangements for child protection, that meets the criterion for inspection I proposed last week – finding out and telling the truth. The inspectorate’s recent reports, not all negative, are here.

Gervase Phinn was giving a lecture tour, and we happened on a matinee in Bury St Edmunds. He was signing books, though this might be better described as giving a free show and acting as his own warm-up man, keeping his audience, many of them older and retired teachers, entertained with stories and jokes, some of them just a little risqué, but not too much, a little like the PM at question time.

I won’t spoil Gervase’s act by passing any of them on, but the phenomenon was interesting. Here was a school inspector that teachers not only liked, but would pay good money to listen to. Mr Phinn continued to tell his jokes and sell his books until three minutes before his show was due to start, at which point he dashed up the stairs to get his suit on, asking the usher to get him a half of bitter for the interval.

Mr Phinn is funny, but not a soft touch. His first series of books – The Dales – feature a young inspector with a sharp eye for excellence as well as competence, who has the good fortune to meet and marry a beautiful, accomplished, and equally young headteacher. He and his colleagues, all highly-skilled teachers, give credible and invaluable praise to the best work, from infants to grammar schools. Elsewhere, they do not pull their punches, opening the curtains on the closed society of archaism and ignorance that still prevails in the worst schools and is protected by the headteacher’s authority. I’ve heard that some of his former bosses in North Yorkshire have not thanked him for this, but those of us who’ve lived and worked in schools think differently.

The heroine of Mr Phinn’s latest series – the Small Village School – is another young headteacher, Elisabeth Devine, described by another character, a senior education officer, as “the standard by which other headteachers are judged.”   She, too, finds romance, alongside a gritty picture of the downside of life in rural Yorkshire and the difficulties faced by children and parents.

Elisabeth is contrasted with two bullying headteachers, one of them her predecessor, but the author’s real target is the complacent and deceitful system of educational  local government, from the ignorant, blustering  weasel of a councillor who chairs her governing body, to the obnoxious chief education officer with his eye on the main chance, which fortunately arises somewhere else.  So far, good is triumphing over evil, Elisabeth’s rival has been dumped and the nasty boss has been replaced by the intelligent senior education officer. Two books to go out of the five.

Gervase Phinn’s show combines Yorkshire folklore with a celebration of his colleagues, and of  the wit and wisdom of young children. He has great timing, is a good mimic, and really cares. A Catholic, like Sir Michael Wilshaw, he does a lot for CAFOD and Childline, and did not hide his anger over the scandalous abuse of young footballers and its cover-up.  But then, exposing cover-up is a big part of the trade of an inspector, and Gervase Phinn was a good one.  Some of the second half felt a little bit like Sunday school, but no-one much minded.  Gervase was soon back at his table, cracking more jokes and selling more books to an even bigger crowd.

This piece first appeared on Conservative Home. I have no idea for which party Gervase Phinn - or indeed Sir M Wilshaw - votes.

HMCI's annual report, and the neglect of subject inspection in schools.

Matthew Coffey told the House of Commons Education Select Committee earlier this year that Ofsted did not inspect "every single subject." This is an understatement. Ofsted is not inspecting any subjects at all, and no subject reports are included in HMCI's annual report. All it says about modern languages is that some pupils are dropping out at 14 because they don't enjoy them or find them difficult.

Ofsted's job is, or ought to be, to say why this is the case, and what should be done about it. It can't answer the questions, because it is not inspecting langauges. In fact, it is not inspecting anything in any detail except management, and has only a handful - less than a handful - of inspectors with the skills that would enable them to do this. The recently-appointed MFL inspector has just sent out an email to primary schools asking what they are doing. This is a dereliction of duty - it is her responsibility to find out what they are doing - not what they say they are - and to evaluate it.

There is not a word about this or any subject in HMCI's annual report. HMCI and his senior colleagues - I only just stop short of the term henchmen - are basing their reports on behaviour, management and data, and do not realise the extent to which data under the current system are corrupt to the extent that they enable cheats and bullies to prosper and penalise honest people. They are, in short, not doing their work properly and have lost all credibility with teachers. Not that that matters to them, as they are all headteachers. The organisation's motto should be changed to reflect the reality. Oderint dum metuant. Let them hate, so long as they fear.

Tablet Computers, Ofsted, and its new motto.

The Telegraph has an article quoting an unnamed Ofsted spokesman as saying that tablet computers are "highly disruptive".  I was surprised, as I'd never heard these computers linked with disruption, and wondered what the evidence was. I'm not sure there is any, so I posted this comment.

On the matter of mobile phones in class, there is plenty of evidence that they cause disruption. They are an instant temptation to pupils to focus on things other than the lesson, and Sir Michael's comment is well-founded.

This anonymous statement about tablet computers is based on no such evidence, and is a disgraceful abuse of the authority of the schools inspectorate.

Who is the "spokesman"? What is his or her evidence that tablet computers are "extremely disruptive"? In which inspection reports has Ofsted found pupils not working properly because they have been using tablet computers? In fact, does Ofsted need evidence any more before making ex cathedra judgements on things it knows nothing about? Is peremptory dictatorship based on personal opinions that may or may not have any foundation in evidence a basis for school inspection?

Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps it is of no consequence whether or not the inspectorate retains any confidence among teachers and headteachers on the matter of its competence and ability to form judgements based on evidence. I still think it does matter. Inspectors have always been liable to make mistakes, but at least in the past they have been honest mistakes.

Ofsted should have a new strapline - Oderint, dum metuant. It should employ a Latin inspector to translate this for his or her colleagues.

Inspection Companies - why they should not be tarred with the same brush.

Ofsted is highly skilled at blaming the people who work for it for its own shortcomings. Over the years, I worked for a very wide range of companies, including Essex, a local authority with which I'd previously fallen out, Nord Anglia, Tribal, Serco and a smaller company, Penzer Allen. I did most of my work with the last two, and found them highly professional and impartial at all times.

Penzer Allen had a strong personal touch, with excellent administrative staff and managers, some of whom have become friends. They had a rule that an inspector who made a mistake would be supported in putting it right, but would not be hired again if they tried to cover it up. Everyone knew the partners, and successful inspectors would be involved in decision making, training, and representing the company at meetings with Ofsted. It was, nevertheless, rigorous rather than cosy - this was made possible by a shared commitment to rigour and fairness.

SERCO was a larger organisation whose training days might attract 50 or so inspectors. The education side of the company operated independently of its other activities, and should not share in the criticism that has been rightly made of them.  It put together well-qualified teams, with particularly strong lead inspectors, and had at its core two highly experienced and incisive leaders who read reports with a critical but fair eye, picking out any conflicts of evidence and ensuring that they lead inspector resolved them properly. Both of these leaders could easily have been senior HMI, and they worked to the same standard. Once again, it was a pleasure to work in such an atmosphere. Intellect was respected and the work was done properly.

The local authority, for which I read reports, worked to the same standard. I was surprised to work with them after my criticism of their performance in teaching reading, but this work was properly carried out.

I've published on this site a letter sent by Tribal to its inspectors, which pretty well sums up that company's approach, and will leave readers to decide whether this is an organisation they would like to work with. I think it's well named.

All I'll say here is that all inspection companies were not alike, and that they did not deserve the same fate. 

Ofsted's machine-gunner. Updated.

 

Sir Robin Bosher, Ofsted's machine-gunner

Sir Robin Bosher has not been a member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and has little inspection experience. In fact, I don't know if he has any inspection experience at all. After refusing to renew contracts for 1200 inspectors in one day, he was interviewed by Eddie  Mair on Radio 4 (pm, 19th June). He gave the most disgraceful display of stonewalling since James Callaghan over the European referendum in the seventies, refusing to answer questions and smirking when Mair asked him what mark he'd give a schoolchild who didn't answer the question. Exercising power gives some people great satisfaction.  

A few more questions need to be answered, or not, as is more likely. This section has been updated following information supplied by inspectors.

How did Sir Robin carry out these "assessments"? Did he read reports or just sift CVs and throw out those he didn't like? A comment was made about "leadership experience". Does this mean that all inspectors must be former heads?  If so, that will further weaken Ofsted's very limited capacity to inspect subjects. He happens to have sacked the only inspector accredited to inspect one subject, not that I think he cared or noticed.  Update. It is clear that very, very few inspectors who had not been headteachers were allowed to proceed past the application stage, and that most of those rejected did not have their work fairly assessed.  For those who survived, Ofsted carried out an assessment procedure very similar in format to the way that Ofsted training has always worked - eg, inspectors would be given a body of evidence from a mock inspection, and asked to write a report.  However, my information, from an inspector who survived the process, shows that the main form of selection was a paper sift.   

As reports have to be approved by Ofsted, how could he tell, having been with Ofsted under a year, what was the work of individual inspectors and what alterations had been made by Ofsted or contractors centrally? Once again, did he care?  It appears from my information that he could not, and did not attempt to do so. Ofsted did not look beyond the cv in many cases.

Previous changes to the Ofsted framework have required some retraining of inspectors. Why did this one require wholesale execution?  There was a move towards a smaller number of full-time inspectors. This would have required some redundancies, but should not have been presented as raising the bar.

And finally, after a conversation with an inspector "kicked out" - in the inspector's words - after twenty years whose work on teams I led was consistently excellent and so assessed by Her Majesty's Inspectors - which Sir Robin Bosher is not - I'd like to ask him whether he has any sense of justice at all, or merely likes lining people up for his administrative machine gun. Were the inspectors inadequate, or is Sir Robin Bosher? This inspector was in no doubt - "Definitely a hatchet job," they said. "They're not interested in whether a person is a good inspector or not."  Update. This remains true, and a disgrace. Sir Robin was not really in a position to judge what made a good inspector, on the basis of his own limited experience. I would still like to know if he has personally inspected so much as a bus ticket.

The KGB would be proud of Sir Robin, if not jealous - there is no appeal from 9mm. Except that here, with 1200 in a day, some more substantial weaponry was needed and supplied. Sir Robin certainly deserves an honour for his work, but it should have been the Order of Lenin rather than a knighthood.

In case I sound like an injured party, I'll make it clear that I'm not personally affected by the carnage, having carried out my last Ofsted inspection in 2006, though I'm still involved in school evaluation and support in other contexts. I have a file of positive evaluation letters from HMI, and was followed, without being told about it, into an inspection by a TES reporter in 2004, who wrote this about my personal contribution to the inspection:

But they don't blame the lead inspector. "The Regi told us on his pre-inspection visit that he would never pass by a strength without noting it, and that he would always set weaknesses in their context. I think he was true to his word," says David Smart. "He kept in touch with me several times a day, and went out of his way to pass on praise for colleagues who had been rated good, very good or excellent in their lesson observations.

He was willing to engage with students, too. He let my A-level sociology class question him very sharply about the Ofsted regime; he took it all on the chin, and was complimentary about their performance."

Head of RE Moira Middleton was also impressed. "The inspector smiled a lot," she says. "He was very positive and nice; genuinely interested in our work, supportive, sensitive and unobtrusive. He made us feel he was on our side." RE teacher Beth Hayward agrees. "He came into my first lesson. I was desperately nervous, and started it with some really terrible jokes. But he laughed at them, and put me more at ease."

I wrote my share of critical reports too, and had to endure the cycle of abuse and complaints that sometimes, though not always, followed them.  It would not be fair to include a negative report here, as the schools have now moved on, but here is a positive report, used as evidence for a successful entry to the Evening Standard School of the Year Award in 2006:

Download Gateway ofsted

Oh, and the answer to Eddie Mair's question about how long this has been going on?  I don't believe that the inspectors are inadequate at all, though some are better than others. The system was wrecked in 2005 by the move from first hand observation to reliance on dodgy data - see Dispatches, 15th June - and by a centralisation of power that removed the independence of lead inspectors. The author of the disaster was Sir David Bell, and the system has not yet recovered. Ofsted, and not the inspectors, is the cause of the problem.

Ofsted urgently needs to set up an appeals process, staffed by experienced HMI who know what they are doing, and not by someone whose successful experience lies in another area of education. Serving inspectors should have had their work assessed properly. Brutality and ignorance in a school inspection system are not good enough.

 

This posting draws on evidence from two serving inspectors. Any others with something to add, please get in touch. Confidentiality guaranteed.

Further update, 27th July 2015.  The form of words used to communicate the end of inspectors' careers was as follows, via email.  You do not meet requirements. There is no appeal. 

Ofsted once had a principle of inspection, set out in its Handbook, that people should be left feeling they had been treated well and fairly.  Sir Robin Bosher's idea of good and fair treatment is a kick in the face.

Ofsted Reform: a first step?

Sir Michael Wilshaw has announced that inspection contracts with the three regional providers, Tribal, SERCO and CfBT, will not be renewed when they expire in Sept 2015. The Guardian's report and comments are here, and a copy of one contractor's letter to inspectors is here.  

We will be well rid of that tone, but there are no plans to return to the system of full subject inspections in each school that was in place before 2005. This may be understandable in view of pressures on the budget, but it does mean that teachers won't necessarily be inspected by people who fully understand their work, and that remains a matter for regret.

Tribal - a friendly letter from a regional inspection provider to its inspectors.

Tribal is the largest regional inspection provider, responsible for the South East.  It seems to have got into hot water with reports found wanting by Ofsted, and apparently some financial penalties to compensate Ofsted for the extra work. It has recently sent this friendly missive to the inspectors who have the pleasure of working with it.  A nice touch, you may think, to close with "kind regards", immediately following two paragraphs reminding inspectors that they are gagged.

The letter raises some questions which Tribal seems reluctant to answer:

1. How many reports have been found wanting, and what redress has been given to the schools? Have any heads been sacked as a result of these reports?

2. How much has Tribal been penalised by Ofsted? Tribal's reply to an inquiry from a journalist was that this was commercially confidential, but it is surely a matter of public interest.

3. If nothing has changed, why has Tribal had to insert a new clause in its agreement with inspectors?

4. Should the contracts of RISPs be renewed, or do we need a new system? Brian Lightman, of the Association of School and College Leaders, thinks the contracts should not be renewed. For once, I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

From: "TEISCOMMS" <[email protected]>
To: "TEISCOMMS" <[email protected]>
Subject: PROTECT: Improving Inspection Quality (COM-2014-056)

[Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:[email protected]]

Improving Inspection Quality
Maintained Schools Inspections Communication to all Inspectors

Dear Colleagues,

We hope that you had a restful half-term and are grateful to the many lead inspectors who attended an additional training event during this holiday period.

As we start the second half of the spring term it is an appropriate time to re-focus on ensuring high quality inspections at every stage of the process, including the rigour of the inspection, the conduct of the inspection team and the quality of the report and evidence base. Ofsted’s evaluation of the Inspection Service Providers’ performance against Key Performance Indicators exists to ensure that inspections across the country meet the standard required and that swift and effective action is taken when they do not. We therefore feel it would be helpful to make clear for all inspectors who work for Tribal, the competencies they are required to demonstrate on inspections and the performance management procedures we use to promote consistently high quality inspections. This information is attached and should be read as soon as possible.


Evidence Bases

Both Tribal and Ofsted review a significant number of evidence bases across all grade profiles, asking a simple question, ‘Does the evidence base fully support the report grades?’ Where Ofsted deem this not to be the case they are likely to contact the lead inspector and/or re-visit the school to seek further evidence. In either/both case(s) this results in a performance failure on the part of Tribal and, where a re-visit happens, the inspection is often judged to be flawed. In a flawed inspection, Ofsted have the contractual right to be reimbursed by Tribal for their costs. Clearly, Tribal cannot sustain such costs and if this occurs we have no option but to seek financial redress from the inspectors involved. This has always been part of Tribal’s Terms and Conditions as set out in 5.4:

Where the performance of an Inspector is such that Tribal becomes liable to pay any sum of money to Ofsted, Tribal reserves the right to recover such amount from the Inspector together with any other costs, expenses and liabilities it incurs relating thereto.

From 24 February 2014 an additional clause has been added to the Terms and Conditions that states in 6.2:

Where Ofsted bring to Tribal’s attention issues with the quality of an inspector’s work and this results in a key performance failure, Tribal reserves the right (without prejudice to its other rights and remedies hereunder) to retract the fee, or part of, for the inspection and recover reasonable costs where appropriate.

Quite clearly we wish to avoid such situations. We need to move to a position where we are able to review a sample of evidence bases in real time i.e. before the report goes to Ofsted and where possible the school. Therefore, with effect from 24 February 2014 we are expecting evidence bases to be with Tribal by first post on final inspection day +3. Inspectors must submit their original white Evidence Forms, and retain their yellow carbon-copy for their own records. However, although Tribal may check them, it remains the responsibility of the lead inspector to ensure that the evidence base is of the highest quality and the team inspectors are required to produce high quality evidence forms in support of this.


Report Writing

Ofsted have introduced a new scale for judging the quality of maintained school reports and letters, which is:


a)     Meets reporting requirements – returned to the ISP using the status ‘met standard publish.’

b)    Does not meet reporting requirements because simple amendments are needed and which have been made by HMI – returned to the ISP as ‘not met standard publish.’

c)     Does not meet reporting requirements because more than simple amendment is necessary - will be escalated to the appropriate Regional Director.

There are now one pass category and two fail categories with regard to meeting reporting requirements. 100% of reports are quality assured by Ofsted on a regional basis. Too many reports have fallen into the third category so far this term. As well as resulting in a KPI failure, this may result in a more severe penalty for Tribal.

Tribal’s QA needs to reflect Ofsted’s criteria so from 24 February we will be using:

1 – meets requirements
2 – does not meet requirements - small amendments
3 – does not meet requirements  - significant amendments

Thus the expectation is that the lead inspector will present reports that require no amendment and are ready for publication; this has always been the case. What this means now, in terms of process, is that for grades 1 and 2 there will be no need for the QA reader to contact the lead, whereas for grade 3 they have to contact the lead as the reader cannot make the amendments.


Annex 3s

A major source of information regarding the performance of inspectors is Annex 3 and a key question is what is exceptional performance?  i.e. what makes a grade 1. In our analysis of Annex 3s, much of what is written against grade 1 is actually what is expected of a grade 2 inspector and does not explain exceptional performance. Key competencies underpin each of the five essential criteria in Annex 3 and the attached aide memoire provides the detail of these. For each grade we have indicated what is expected. Going forward, all inspectors need to refer to this when completing the Annex.

In addition, recent analysis shows that not all inspectors are completing their Annex 3 reviews on their team, or lead inspector(s). Therefore, please can you ensure you complete all reviews on all colleagues for all inspections. This data is crucial is managing our performance and therefore we require the support of all inspectors in ensuring the reviews are completed.



Finally, given the current media interest the work of Ofsted, it is apposite to remind all inspectors of Tribal’s terms and conditions with regard to inspectors’ involvement in the media. This is set out in 8.5:

The Inspector shall not, without the express prior permission of Tribal, seek to write articles for the media, write parts of or the whole of a book, appear on any form of TV, radio or online media in any capacity whatsoever that might be connected with the business of Ofsted or Tribal, or offer itself as an expert witness on inspections or school improvement.

To be clear, this includes social media such as Facebook, Twitter and online blogs. Inspectors should not be commenting on the work of Ofsted or Tribal in their capacity as an inspector as, by placing information/opinion in the public domain, this has the potential to undermine your position when on inspection and to bring Ofsted and Tribal into disrepute.


Thank you for reading this communication which is intended to support your inspection work. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with you to ensure that every inspection is of high quality and contributes to our shared commitment to educational improvement for all students.

Kind regards

Paul Dowgill – Director of Inspections, EFES
Peter Callow – Director of Inspections

TEISCOMMS
Communication Reference (COM-2014-056)

Tribal
1-4 Portland Square, Bristol, BS2 8RR

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

www.tribalgroup.com<http://www.tribalgroup.com/>

PS. Here is a link to a previous BBC report on Tribal.

This looks interesting too, from teacher roar.