{"id":225879,"date":"2025-02-25T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-25T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/schoolsweek.co.uk\/?p=225879"},"modified":"2025-02-24T16:50:08","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T16:50:08","slug":"what-way-to-better-inspections-consult-our-a-to-z","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/schoolsweek.co.uk\/what-way-to-better-inspections-consult-our-a-to-z\/","title":{"rendered":"What way to better inspections? Consult our A to Z"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Consultations about inspection are in danger of getting a bad name. First, earlier last year was Ofsted\u2019s presumptuous Big Listen. This was followed by its alter ego, our almost equally presumptuous Alternative Big Listen<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this month Ofsted announced a twelve-week consultation on its latest proposals, including report cards. And today, we are launching\u2026 wait for it\u2026 the Alternative Big Consultation<\/a>, hereafter the ABC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the ABC? To avoid any misunderstanding, it\u2019s not our reaction to Ofsted\u2019s and DfE\u2019s preoccupation with phonics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s because Ofsted\u2019s current consultation is much ado about nothing \u2013 nothing but the same old, long-established inspection model, which it takes as generally fit for purpose, but which no longer is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so the sector is being consulted on a raft of minor changes which are so far from the dreaded ‘revolution’ that they do not even constitute the needed ‘evolution’ the chief inspector claims to champion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposals represent business as usual, albeit with a cosmetic, colour-coded (though admittedly not sugar-coated) veneer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No wonder the whole thing has landed so badly, not just with teachers\u2019 professional associations but much more widely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first part of our ABC deliberately mirrors aspects of Ofsted\u2019s consultation. It focuses on the same twelve main issues about which Ofsted asks for responses, but with a crucial difference.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ofsted simply asks respondents for their views, but because of the open-ended nature of its questions it cannot gauge or report on their levels of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We remain\u00a0advocates for inspection, and our aim is to be constructive<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, while offering an opportunity for open-ended responses, the ABC asks about the degree to which Ofsted\u2019s response to each of those twelve issues is fit for purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also asks a crucial concluding question: How far do Ofsted\u2019s proposals represent an improvement, a continuation\u00a0 or a deterioration compared with the most recent inspection practice?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part of the ABC reflects our disappointment that Ofsted has presented a model of inspection very similar to the previous one, and with such a tight deadline that it feels like it\u2019s a matter of \u2018take it or leave it\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this section, we have identified 11 possible features of a remodelled inspection model. These are different from past inspection practice and from Ofsted \u2018s own proposals, but they represent an attempt to produce a more responsive, more acceptable, less heavy-handed and less confrontational system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among these proposals, for example, are less intensive, lighter-touch inspections as the norm; many fewer full inspections; simpler reporting arrangements; more thematic inspection surveys; complementing inspection with peer-group quality assurance; and a fully independent complaints process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ABC asks which of the eleven features should be given careful consideration in any new inspection model. It asks respondents to rate each on the scale from \u2018essential\u2019 through to \u2018not worth considering\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also invites respondents to suggest what other components might be incorporated in a reconstructed inspection model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We will be sharing respondents\u2019 views in ABC\u2019s final report, which we will publish by May.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We remain advocates for inspection, and our aim is to be constructive. We believe it is possible to have rigour and robust evaluation of early years settings, schools and colleges while maintaining high levels of respect, appreciation and understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We hope the ABC will show that a more collaborative and less confrontational approach can lead the sector to that system, while redressing a balance of power which currently rests far too heavily with Ofsted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ofsted\u2019s consultation is open until 28 April. Complete it here<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Alternative Big Consultation is open until 4 April. Complete it here<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our alternative consultation on school inspection reform aims to map out a better route to a better destination than Ofsted offers<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":311124,"featured_media":224718,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"post-theme":[3559],"class_list":["post-225879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","post-theme-opinion-accountability"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t