Reflections on Ofsted Following the Tragic Loss of a Much Loved Teacher
Amanda Knowles MBE
Caregiver, Organiser Your Life Your Story, Supporter of Children's Rights.
Ofsted's Response
The official response to calls for the reform of school inspections and calls for change following the tragic death of Headteacher Ruth Perry was published on GOV.UK Thursday 21 April. HMCI Amanda Spielman said, “I want to acknowledge the continuing debate and the strength of feeling, and I want to set out some of the things we’re doing and reflect on the suggestions of more radical reform.”?She wrote that the secretary of state for education has been clear that Ofsted inspection is a vital part of the school system and had said that independent assessments provide important assurance to parents, the wider community and to government that pupils are receiving a high-quality education and are being kept safe.?
All parents?
I doubt this is a view shared by the parents of children abused at two residential special schools in Doncaster following the final report and recommendations of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel published on GOV.UK the day before. These schools had been rated consistently good by Ofsted despite more than 100 reports of abuse and neglect. The inquiry identified a culture of abuse in which children were physically, and emotionally harmed by staff between 2018 and 2021.??The panel concluded that the existing system of oversight and regulation through Ofsted and others had failed and recommended an overhaul of inspection practices.?
Failing schools
Two days after the publication of Amanda Spielman’s written response, the way that schools are inspected was discussed during the BBC program Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. When?asked?if the way schools are being inspected is correct,?the National Education Union joint general secretary Mary Bousted, said: “No, it’s not working at all. The problem is, the crisis has now come to the fore, but it’s been a problem which has been growing over decades.?During the program we also heard that the family of Ruth Perry?lay the blame for what happened at Ofsted’s door and that they are calling for a halt to all inspections. Speaking on behalf of the family Ruth’s sister said, “she was fine before the Ofsted inspection she was not fine during or after it. It is a potentially dangerous system.”?
Failing children's social care
Having experienced and witnessed the impact of Ofsted’s inspection practices and regulatory processes since the Blair government transferred the inspection and regulation of children’s homes from CSCI to Ofsted in 2007, I share the concerns raised by the family and the views of Mary Bousted and many others whose voices were not heard on this program. My own experience in children’s social care and education pre-dates Ofsted by 16 years. Fifteen years later I was managing children’s homes and independent schools in the private sector. Since then, I have become increasingly disillusioned by the government’s defence of Ofsted in the face of professional criticism, recurring failures, tragedies, and scandals.
In 2012 I wrote to the children’s minister and the children’s commissioner about Ofsted’s refusal to investigate why evidence of an excessive use of dangerous and unlawful physical intervention and other serious safeguarding concerns in homes that I had become responsible for had been disregarded during an inspection in 2007. In 2017 I wrote to the independent investigation of child sexual abuse about the submission of false evidence during a trial that had perverted the course of justice. Then in 2020 I responded to the call for evidence from the education select committee who were conducting their own inquiry into children’s homes.?https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/26063/pdf/
I had by then returned to the provision of regulated children’s homes after leaving to manage supported accommodation services for young people transitioning from care to independence for 2 years. Sadly, alarm bells were soon ringing. After witnessing the disqualification of two suitably qualified and experienced managers, I was deeply concerned about validity and the impact of Ofsted processes on those affected. In response, I started a campaign to end the unfair disqualification of caregivers. One applicant who was?Disqualified in July 2019 after 20 years’ service wrote?... "I’m sorry I’ve not returned your calls; I’m just really struggling at the moment. Not quite sure what, if anything is wrong with me but I’m struggling to speak with anyone, friends and family included."??The number of signatures on the petition to end the disqualification of caregivers has reached 675. Not many, some may say, but each person who has signed the petition will have a reason and a story to tell about their Ofsted experiences. Who is listening..??
Doncaster failings
In Doncaster during November 2021?inspections took place at two residential special schools belonging to the same organisation. During the inspection of the first school, inspectors found that school leaders had not ensured that safeguarding is effective. They had not addressed safeguarding issues raised at the previous inspection and inspectors concluded:?These standards are not met.?At the inspection of the second school?2 weeks later, inspectors found that: All leaders had ensured that safeguarding has been strengthened in the school since the last inspection in March 2021.?These standards are now met.?They wrote:
Four months later these schools were closed amidst safeguarding concerns being investigated by the police.?
Ofsted's Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, told the BBC that while there was "a great failure of integrity" by Hesley managers to report incidents, she was "deeply sorry" for the regulator's failures. "We acted in response to concerns but we worked slower than we should have to recognise the pattern of abuse."
On October 26th 2022, the first report prepared by the child safeguarding review panel was published. It said these settings were regulated by Ofsted and operated as independent residential special schools where the conditions for abuse were allowed to flourish and vulnerable children had suffered "systemic and sustained abuse”.?We now know that?Ofsted had received 108 reports of serious incidents and that 232 referrals were received by Doncaster Council's safeguarding lead (known as the LADO).?
Caversham failings
Three weeks after the school closures Doncaster, Caversham Primary School was inspected and rated inadequate after inspectors reported significant weaknesses in safeguarding that school leaders were not aware of until the inspection.?There is nothing in the report indicating that children had suffered detriment as a result of the shortfalls identified. But of course, only Ofsted know how significant these shortfalls were and whether the level of potential risk to pupils was high enough to justify an overall judgement of inadequate.?When?asked on the Laura Kuenssberg program if the inspection had come to the right conclusion Amanda Spielman said, “I think the findings were secure and I think the inspection team worked with the professionalism and sensitivity that I would expect from our inspectors.” She went on to say, “there are times when failures in safeguarding can be sufficiently serious, and that alone can bring an overall judgment.”
Different judgements, different impact
While in Doncaster reports rated standards met or not, in Caversham they were rated inadequate. The judgement of 'standards met or not' does not carry the same connotations as describing a whole school as 'inadequate', and it does not burden recipients with blame and shame.?When asked about the use and fairness of single word judgments Amanda Spielman said that parents find them easy to understand and want the assurance that comes from the inspection process. She went on to say that they are used by the wider system, which is of course true, and it is for that very reason that the reliability and validity of these judgements is of the utmost importance. But as we have seen in Doncaster, we now know with certainty that inspection judgements are not reliable.
领英推荐
When Amanda Spielman was asked whether she thought nothing had gone wrong, the question was not answered. Instead, we witnessed again a willingness to blame others .... “there are many people who are profoundly opposed to the wider system of accountability who would like something very different.”?Yet, in everything I have read, and everything I have listened to, I have not heard anyone say that the inspection of schools or the inspection and regulation of children’s social care is not necessary or that people should not he held accountable.?The problem is that?the use of single word judgments does not differentiate between?serious shortfalls that cause detriment and those that do not, nor does it separate?ethical professionals from those who deliberately or negligently break the rules.?
For those who may not know, residential schools that?provide accommodation for pupils for more than 295 days each year, including specialist and mainstream schools, must register as a children’s home. If a residential special school is also registered as a children’s home when the education provision is subject to a full inspection, an inspection of the boarding or residential accommodation takes place the same time. The school is notified by telephone the day before an aligned inspection takes place.?
On their terms
What Amanda has not said is that making safeguarding a limiting judgment is a decision made by Ofsted. This limiting judgement means that when safeguarding shortfalls are judged to be 'sufficiently serious', the overall judgment of a mainstream school will always be inadequate - irrespective of performance maintained in other areas. However, what is deemed to be 'sufficiently serious' is not defined by Ofsted, it is open to inconsistent interpretation and almost impossible to dispute because the evidence is not shared.
The evidence Ofsted rely on to make their judgements does not have to stand up to independent scrutiny and inspectors are not held accountable for the validity of the judgements reached, the reports they write - or harm caused.?On September 1st 2020 the complaints process was amended by Ofsted. The telephone call made by the complaints officer was removed, thus denying the complainant the opportunity to expand on their concerns. Unless Ofsted decide further information is needed, the handling of complaints is now based only on what is submitted on a complaint form. Two and a half years later, amid growing criticism of its handling of concerns raised by schools, Amanda Spielman has finally admitted that the complaints procedure is not working.
A hostile environment
The complaints procedure is not the only thing not working. When asked why there is a culture of fear around inspections and whether it actually exists, Amanda Spielman said she would certainly acknowledge that it exists.?I would go further and say that fear led inspection has had a profound effect on children’s social care and education. An inspectorate that is unwilling to take criticism without blaming other’s risks driving a hiding culture that puts children’s actual wellbeing and safety at risk.?
According to Professor of Justice Systems Christopher Hodges:
“A system that is based solely on inspection, where inspections are followed by criticism such as this this hospital/school is low grade and failing, there is little chance that the staff will be motivated or helped to improve. The primary incentive will be to avoid criticism and cover up inadequacies at the time of inspection or to game the rules to claim performance that is unjustified.” (Hodges & Steinholtz, 2017, p13)
The prove it game
I worry that the inspection process has become a ‘prove it’ game – prove you said it, prove you did it, prove you saw it, prove you heard it, prove you know it, prove you assessed it, prove you reviewed it, prove you didn’t.... Inspectors say if it is not written down it did not happen. In this climate of fear the burden of recording has become immense yet as we have seen it does not prove everything and, let’s not forget that we are human. Teachers and caregivers make mistakes and so do inspectors. Just because it is not written down does not mean it did not happen. As lessons from Doncaster have shown just because it is written down does not mean it did happen and more importantly, it does not mean that record is reliable.
In conclusion...
Whilst I don’t disagree with the findings of the children’s safeguarding panel review, I am not so sure I agree with the recommendations. We have been here many times before. We know that there are workforce deficits, we know that training could be better, we know that recruitment and retention needs to improve, we know that demand for registered managers exceeds supply. Before we rush ahead, I think we need to be clear about what we expect from our caregivers and teachers and understand the challenges they face. We need to be honest about whether they have access to the resources and support from the wider system to do that job well. And, above all, we need to dismantle the blame culture, rebuild trust, and create a supportive environment where people are supported to do the job our children need them to do.?
It will take political will to replace the telling culture with a listening culture, to bring an end to unfair inspection processes that instil fear in the workforce and name and shame without good reason, and effort to reinstate the professional respect our teachers and caregivers deserve.
Amanda Knowles MBE
Caregiver?
Hodges, C., & Steinholtz, R. (2017). Ethical business practice and regulation: a behavioural and values-based approach to compliance and enforcement (Vol. 6). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Director at Children's Homes Quality
1 年Thanks you Amanda, this is a really compelling and thought provoking read. I hope those with the power to make changes are moved to take action.