‘The call’ — Educators and EPs in a post-Ofsted future
Dr Rob Begon, Educational Psychologist
In the aftermath of recent tragedy, opposition to Ofsted inspections has understandably reached fever pitch. While the fallout is still being processed in the collective consciences of those who are impacted, a long overdue reform of school inspections now seems inevitable. Within this, there appears to be an opportunity for educators and Educational Psychologists (EPs) to work collaboratively and play a central role in the changing face of school improvement.
The state we’re in
In 1992, the Conservative government established Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education), a privatised inspectorate body with the stated aim of informing parents about a school’s performance and helping to improve standards in education. Though it was originally conceived as providing impartial and independent advice for schools to consider, this soon gave way to the imposition of ‘objective’ and incontestable findings that schools were compelled to act upon.
Ofsted has long been criticised for its broadly punitive nature, the excessively high stakes involved in assessment, and the inexorable pressure imposed upon school staff. No more keenly was this evident than in January 2023, when Ruth Perry, a dedicated and highly-regarded headteacher with over 30 years in education, took her own life whilst awaiting the publishing of an Ofsted report downgrading her school from “outstanding” to “inadequate”. Ms Perry’s family said that her death had been the direct result of the pressure of the inspection, an experience Ms Perry reportedly described as “the worst day of her life”.
What followed, both from within and without the education sector, was a groundswell of grief, and anger, with the voices of educators, whose concerns were already serious and long-standing, suddenly brought to the fore. In the immediate aftermath, schools began to refuse Ofsted inspections and remove Ofsted information from their websites, and there were calls, fronted by the National Education Union (NEU), for Ofsted to be abolished in favour of alternative forms of school assessment. Certainly, this was the most visible demonstration of public opposition to Ofsted since its inception, and a definitive sign, were it needed, that it was surely now time for seismic change.
That it took someone to lose their life for these concerns to be heard is truly a tragedy, though it would be remiss were this not to be seen as a potentially defining moment in the changing landscape of school improvement. Echoing calls from Ms Perry’s family that “Ruth’s name must not be lost in vain”, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that the response to Ms Perry’s death “needs to be a watershed moment”. At the time of writing, the NEU continue to campaign for the replacement of Ofsted with a system that is “supportive”, “collaborative” and “fair”.
The role of EPs
As an Educational Psychologist (EP), typically working across multiple schools and areas, one could hardly fail to be aware of school staff’s perpetual fear of the ‘the call’ — notifying of an Ofsted assessment, usually received the day before it takes place — and the immediate and profound strain this invariably causes. What tends to follow is a process of becoming ‘inspection ready’, which usually involves identifying (and foregrounding) the areas on which a school knows they will be inspected, preparing banks of data for presentation, and, ultimately, providing a somewhat sanitised version of their complex school system for a standalone (usually single-day) inspection.
This has little to do with the day-to-day practices towards which educators strive, but tends to be seen as an ultimately unavoidable feature of the system in which they work. This is not to suggest a reluctance on the part of educators to accept and acknowledge scrutiny of their practice; the vast majority are more than willing to engage in reciprocal and constructive conversations in this regard. What they tend to oppose are the often adversarial inspections and seemingly inconsistent reports, typically lacking in clear guidance on realistic and achievable steps that may be taken to address identified areas for improvement.
Clearly this is completely antithetical to how EPs would hope to be perceived, and the practical, meaningful and sustainable change they aim to facilitate. This disparity could be at least partly related to the different remits of EPs and Ofsted; the former broadly an advisory and support service, the latter a regulatory body. However, they both, in theory, fall under the broad banner of school improvement, and so there appears to be no obvious reason why the two should be so diametrically opposed. In view of this, then, there seems to be an opportunity, not only for EPs to reflect upon and develop their existing practice in relation to the kind of change they seek to facilitate, but to work collaboratively with educators in shaping what ‘school improvement’ (in its broadest sense) might become.
Given the inherently punitive nature of the existing system, and the calls from within education for change that is positive and forward-thinking, a solution-oriented approach (already well-established within contemporary EP practice) seems to emerge as an ideal framework within which to situate a response. While a solution-oriented approach necessarily involves moving towards a shared understanding of an imagined future in which the issues raised by educators are no longer present, it requires that those issues have first been listened to and validated, something Ofsted themselves have so far seemed reluctant to do.
Listen to the person, listen to the possibility
As noted, Ofsted inspections tend to be punitive (rather than constructive) in nature, with the subsequent recommendations for practical change typically lacking in clarity and substance. More than this, they generally show little recognition of the local or national context in which this recommended change is expected to take place. Ofsted reports are notably silent on underfunding, and seem all too willing ignore the fact that the changes demanded of schools often rely upon resources and staffing that simply do not exist. Ofsted’s reluctance to acknowledge the issue of funding in schools is perhaps unsurprising given that by doing this, Ofsted — itself an arm of government — would essentially be turning the spotlight on the very people who commission them.
Also central within this discussion is the academisation of the school system (following the Academies Act of 2010), and the subsequent years of austerity overseen by Conservative (and coalition) governments. Inherent within this has been the commodification of education, and consequently a deference to ableist definitions of achievement that prioritise ‘output’ (primarily examination results) above all else.
What these neoliberal terms of engagement — and, by extension, Ofsted — fail most notably to acknowledge is the natural variation in students’ developmental trajectories, meaning that there are many for whom these narrowly-conceived definitions of achievement simply do not apply. Evaluating students’ progress with reference to test results alone, therefore, is relatively meaningless, and leads to Ofsted inspections being weighted against schools that are, for example, in areas of socioeconomic deprivation, or have higher numbers of students with special educational needs. Indeed, it has been shown consistently that the majority of schools stuck in a cycle of repeatedly weak Ofsted performances had higher numbers of ‘disadvantaged’ pupils on roll.
More recent developments, too, have added to the already existing pressures on schools. Take, for example, the introduction of a new inspection framework in 2019, and an end to the exemption to inspection for schools that had previously been judged as ‘outstanding’. This involved many schools, including the afore-mentioned Caversham Primary, being inspected for the first time in 10 years or more, resulting in many of them being downgraded.
On top of this has been the inevitable impact of Covid-19, during which Ofsted inspections were suspended, only for them to be reintroduced in the summer of 2021, with a now expedited timeline to ensure that all settings are inspected by summer 2025. All this at a time when schools are already struggling with increased rates of pupil absence, with children experiencing various additional difficulties brought on by the disruption of lockdown.
Given the obvious messiness of this socio-political context — to say nothing of the day-to-day complexities of the school systems with which educators are required to contend — the crude reductionism of a one-word grading system, especially when conferring an unwanted rating, seems particularly lacking (inadequate?). Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former chief inspector of schools in England and head of Ofsted, said parents simply “want a summary judgment” on whether “they are sending their children to a good school”. But does this argument really hold up?
Certainly, when initially choosing a school, parents will often defer to Ofsted ratings, with little other publicly available information on which to base their judgement. However, and even setting aside the afore-mentioned issues with Ofsted, the reports are on average 3 years old at the time parents make their choice, and so often have little relevance to the current situation in a school. Moreover, research suggests that Ofsted ratings have little to no predictive power in terms of future parental satisfaction. Once their child is attending a particular school, parents will generally form their own opinions about its quality, and this tend to be based on quite a different set of criteria from those applied by Ofsted. Take, for example, these words from a parent of a child at Caversham Primary, who disagreed with Ofsted’s summation:
What most parents want to know is this: that teachers truly care about their children and their school, that they are talented and dedicated to giving a high standard of education, that they are committed to helping children become responsible, happy members of society with bright, unlimited futures.
A place of understanding
This does not represent an exhaustive account of the issues experienced by educators, and indeed, as a solution-oriented framework endorses, relentless deconstruction of a problem often leaves us feeling more entrenched in existing practices rather than any closer to a solution. What the preceding discussion does, however, is begin to situate us within the problem, rather than separate to it, and means that there is at least then the possibility of moving forward from a place of understanding. Such a principle already underpins large parts of EP practice, where the practitioner aims to explore the various strands of meaning within a situation in order that a shared understanding of ‘the problem’, and therefore the ways in which it might be addressed, can be developed.
At a time of such palpable discontent regarding school inspections, there is a natural desire for immediate and tangible change that addresses the issues raised. This is not entirely implausible, and Labour have already promised, for example, that they would scrap the current system of ‘headline judgements’ in favour of a report card system. While this may go some way to capturing the texture and nuance required to adequately characterise the complexity of any school system, one wonders whether this kind of change goes far enough, and, crucially, whether it too passively accepts the terms of engagement with which the current system presents us. Ultimately, if we wish to engender the kind reform being spoken about, we cannot simply modify the existing system — we need to fundamentally re-think it.
As we have seen, the current grading system is but one aspect of Ofsted that is not only inherently flawed but has so often seemed entirely immune to challenge. But what if the system was not so immovable and what if we were able to question some of the basic assumptions about what school improvement should entail? As with any form of deep-rooted systemic change of the kind being proposed (here and more widely), there are inevitably, at least at this early stage, more questions than answers. However, provided the questions continue to be asked, and, crucially, continue to be heard, we begin to reveal creative possibilities for potential change that did not previously exist.
For example, is there an inherent need for there to be a grading system at all, and who, ultimately, does such a system serve? Upon what grounds are Ofsted bestowed the right to pass judgement on schools, and what systems are in place to regulate their practice? And are we to simply accept the underlying premise that the most effective way of improving standards in education is by inspecting and regulating schools, and then surveilling those that are deemed to be substandard? Though again the answers to these kinds of questions may not be immediately forthcoming, their being asked means that the conversations are being had, and the prospect of genuine change becomes a more distinct possibility.
Though of course this kind of dialogue is not the sole preserve of educators and EPs, it does seem that the two are ideally placed to be at the forefront of such conversations. As noted, educators and EPs, for the most part, already work in a way that is collaborative and constructive, and look to develop relationships based on partnership and reciprocity. Potential change does not tend to be coerced or imposed, but is instead a shared goal based on a joint understanding of the issue(s) at hand. Moreover, a school’s success would never be judged against its acquiescence to a set of prescriptive criteria, but rather, for example, by the richness and diversity of the school community, the inclusivity of learning spaces, and the felt sense of connection and belonging for young people and their families.
It is upon these kinds of foundations that a new form of school improvement can be conceived, and through which educators and EPs can begin to become the architects of change. As these conversations begin to extend from an individual school level, to communities of schools, local authority level, and even to a national and trade union level, so the call for change is multiplied. It is within these spaces of resistance where key stakeholders can begin to feel genuinely able to question and challenge institutionally entrenched practices, and where meaningful and sustainable change can begin to take place. In turn, the process of school improvement can begin to re-focus on the aim of providing the best possible education for young people, rather than being a series of hoops through which educators are expected to jump.
A different call
Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, said that the inspection team involved in the assessment of Caversham Primary “worked with the professionalism and sensitivity that [she] would expect”. Perhaps, then, it is time to re-think our expectations around school inspections, and indeed fundamentally reconsider how we understand the concept of school improvement.
While opposition to Ofsted has only recently been brought to the fore, the concerns of educators have been serious and long-standing, and the flaws in the system deep-rooted and manifold. The change being advocated here echoes broader proposals for (at the very least) an open and constructive dialogue between key stakeholders, and, more specifically, a commitment by educators and EPs to work collaboratively and co-operatively in order to maintain the best possible environments for the young people with whom we work.
Perhaps in future, then, if Ofsted inspections are mentioned in schools, the evocation will not be ‘the call’ notifying of its imminence, but the call of the collective voices of educators and EPs who took a stand, and began the process that enabled us to move away from a system of surveillance and forced compliance, and towards a system that is supportive, collaborative and fair.
Dr Rob Begon is a tutor on the Doctor of Educational and Child Psychology (DEdCPsy) at The University of Sheffield.
