The news that Ofsted inspections are to be overhauled again indicates that a fundamental rethink is required, rather than tinkering again with the grading system (England school inspections to be overhauled again after barrage of complaints, 2 October). As an educator with 30 years’ experience in international schools (21 years as head of two schools), I would suggest that when further changes are made, the first step should be to stop calling them “inspections”. The word implies an unfeeling, top-down procedure. While British curriculum international schools tend to use an Ofsted-style procedure, American international and international baccalaureate schools tend to use “evaluation” or “accreditation” procedures.
In these, the school evaluates its own performance against a set of standards. The people who work in the school, including students, plus parents and board members, spend a year discussing the school’s achievements and identifying areas for improvement. They submit their report to the agency, which then puts together a team who will visit the school. The team is made up of practising educators from other international schools. So the school is evaluated by fellow professionals, which is much less threatening than a team of inspectors. Their job is to decide whether the school has accurately evaluated its own performance.
My experience is that schools generally do an excellent job of self-evaluation, which means that the visitors can say: “Well done, you know your strengths and weaknesses, we can now offer our expertise in building on this report and helping you to move up to the next level.” The team visit is a positive, collegial experience whose aim is to validate the work that the school’s own staff has done. This contrasts with the seagull approach of an Ofsted visit – they fly in, make a lot of noise, disrupt everything and then take off, leaving a load of guano behind.
The sympathetic, supportive model of evaluation is already out there waiting to be adopted.
Gareth Jones
London
I have experienced four Ofsted inspections: as the chair of governors at a primary school, an early years group, head of a large adult learning service, and vice‑chair of governors at a further education college. Three received favourable judgments under the previous Ofsted framework; the fourth was rated “requires improvement”, severely affecting staff morale and mental wellbeing.
However courteous the inspectors, the methodology in all cases created considerable pressure and anxiety. The process sometimes resembled a police search: practices and records were scrutinised, staff questioned under suspicion and the final judgment delayed.
Educational institutions require rigorous inspection and poor practice must be addressed. But the current model appears to favour enforcement over constructive professional support. A more effective model would combine inspection with consultation. Inspectors would identify strengths and areas for improvement, followed by targeted support for a defined period. A shorter follow-up would assess progress. One has only to refer back to the more collaborative model adopted by the former Adult Learning Inspectorate to appreciate the difference.
This would retain rigour while reducing the punitive tone, and foster a more collegiate relationship between Ofsted and institutions. It would also require inspectors to offer remedies as well as judgments.
Richard Hooper
Penistone, South Yorkshire
