News<\/a>\u2019 section. Not a mention \u2013 even though they\u2019ve had 7 months to think about it. <\/p>\n\n\n\nParagraph 5.44 of the Serious Case Review states, \u201cIt has become clear from this review that whilst the Early Years Service had many concerns about the nursery there was no formal mechanism for informing Ofsted, since they did not reach the threshold of a breach of regulations. Similarly Ofsted had no means of discussing with Early Years the support need of the nursery. It is notable that whilst Early Years had the nursery identified as red or amber on its own rating system, Ofsted inspections were good or satisfactory\u201d. Again, Ofsted making a judgement that is far removed from reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So why is this happening? There is a theme, and that is the \u2018tick-box\u2019 culture that Ofsted appears to support. This was noted by Deborah Orr when she wrote in the Guardian last year (26 November 2009). \u201cDoes Ofsted\u2019s tick-box culture deserve the criticism that has been heaped on it this week? I do believe so. I have before me an inspection report on a London primary school, rated outstanding. It scores the highest grade (out of four) in every one of 33 categories, except two. What are the two categories that this school fails to achieve perfection in? Oh, just \u2018standards achieved by learners\u2019 and \u2018how well learners develop . . . skills that will contribute to their economic well-being\u2019. Little things, of no great consequence in a school.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What\u2019s the common denominator in these last three examples? Ofsted have awarded ratings that are far higher than the services or institutions warrant \u2013 when looking at it from the perspective of society rather than ticked boxes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Exactly. Because what generally happens when you create a tick-box culture? You measure things that are easy to measure \u2013 because that\u2019s what ticking boxes is about. And that in turn makes unimportant things suddenly important \u2013 because they are generally easier to measure when using boxes to be ticked. And so people stop concentrating on the important things \u2013 because what gets measured generally happens. And so the truly important matters are not important any longer \u2013 well, not to the inspectors and those who are being inspected and want to achieve a good rating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These examples are three occasions where Ofsted have given ratings far higher than they deserve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Earlier this year Zenna Atkins announced she would be standing down as Chair of Ofsted on 31 August 2010. When she spoke of her decision to stand down, she said, \u201cThe work of Ofsted not only costs the taxpayer a third less than when undertaken by four separate inspectorates but we are also supporting improvement in a more efficient and effective way. Front-line observation and engagement with children, parents and leadership teams are now at the heart of all new inspection arrangements, sweeping away any inherited tick box culture\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019m not convinced, Zenna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In my view, Ofsted is not providing value for money \u2013 even if it is costing a third less \u2013 and it needs a complete overhaul. More important than it not providing value, it is not measuring the right things, and most importantly it is not effectively protecting children or supporting their development. And it appears to be institutionalised in its processes and so I wonder whether it will be able to change. I\u2019d scrap it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is great as a case study of what can go wrong when tick-box processes are created. But, sadly, in my opinion, that\u2019s all it\u2019s currently good for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paul<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As we focus on where we could save money and where we waste money in the UK in order to balance the books, I am becoming increasingly unsure of why Ofsted continues to exist \u2013 at least in its current form. Earlier this year (15 August 2010) I blogged about my thoughts on what Chris […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,16,17],"tags":[180],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":243,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242\/revisions\/243"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}