Express & Star

Censored by Ofsted: Headteacher refused to take down 'flawed' inspections blog

Published
Last updated

When Andrew Morrish, a headteacher who oversaw the dramatic turnaround of two Black Country primary schools, described Ofsted's inspections as 'flawed' in a blog he was ordered to remove. Here he explains why he did not back down and resigned as an inspector.

more

I started writing an educational blog in 2013. The blog post that caused the controversy was called 'Doing good as we go', a reference to a mantra that I was given by Ofsted when I trained to be an inspector in 2007.

I wrote the post having recently been through the training that was required of all inspectors who were offered the new central contract.

[related_posts title="More education news"]

The training was tough which as a serving headteacher reassured me. I reflected on this in the blog post, that was written as a positive and supportive piece, highlighting the pressures that inspectors are under to get the decision right.

Too much is at stake if inspectors get it wrong and so it was crucial that they do good as they go. This means that even if difficult decisions have to be made about a school – perhaps to put it into special measures – the decision is a good one because it is correct and based on solid evidence.

[comments_cta header="What do you think?" text="Do Ofsted reports reports influence your decision on where to send your children to school?" button="Log in and leave your thoughts below"]

I had been on the wrong end of an inspection that was poorly led, resulting in a decision that was 'laughable' given the lack of rigour and accuracy. I mentioned this in my blog.

Not long after it had been published, I received a call from the office of a senior national director at Ofsted.

I was informed that someone had referred them to my blog. I was told that despite the fact that she 'quite enjoyed' the post, there were sections that were 'not befitting of an inspector'.

[breakout title="Extract from blog watchdog wanted to gag" align="right"]I will never forget my 'sign-off' inspection in 2007. As a rookie inspector you enter the arena with confidence and poise.

But deep down, I had never felt more nervous – more so than any interview I'd ever had.

You've been trained, you've completed your 'shadow' inspection, and so – quite rightly – the Her Majesty's Inspector leading the team (and who is scrutinising your every move) expects you to get on with it.

You collect your blank evidence forms (EFs) from the team room, are given the areas you are leading on, a timetable, map of the school and off you go.

I still feel the same way now. The stakes are so considerably high that nothing less than exceptional performance on my part is going to be acceptable.

I have to get it right. The team has to get it right. When I did my training with Tribal, the trainer instilled in us a mantra that we must always abide by: Do good as you go.

Having recently at the time been on the receiving end of several quite bruising inspections, I found this laughable. Since when have Ofsted done good as they went?

It never felt like that for me when on the receiving end.

'Do good as you go' stuck with me and I try to carry it with me at all times, none more so than when inspecting a school. It is now one of the five core values of the trust that I lead and is a key driver in creating the ethos and culture.

At a recent Ofsted training event, Sean Harford (Ofsted's National Director of Schools) alluded to much the same thing. He said that inspectors require not only a 'fierce intellect but also an impeccable bedside manner'. He is right.

So, as the 2015 inspection window opens a week from today, I hope that amidst all the pressures of a new framework, the 1500-strong inspection team remember this.

I'm sure they will because it's been drilled into us by Her Majesty's Inspector at recent Common Inspection Framework training events and regional national conferences.

The new inspection framework feels very different in approach than previous ones. We all know that the process of inspection is flawed in so many ways.

But as we move forward into another new framework with the assumption that good schools are just that, I am confident that if we get it right, a lot more good will be done as we go.

As a serving practitioner I feel very reassured by this and I hope you do, too.

This piece was originally published on September 14, 2015, at standoutlearning.me[/breakout]

The gist of the conversation was that they needed to be removed. The charge list was then read back to me, each incriminating sentence taken out of context.

One such example was that I referred to the fact that the 'process of inspection is flawed'. I tried to mildly protest that were someone to read the blog in its entirety, it is actually a pro-Ofsted piece. The clue is in the title: Doing good as we go. Not good enough apparently, because when someone reads the sentence out of context, the unfortunate reader will get the impression that it is anti-Ofsted. I suggested that it's dangerous to quote out of context and is rather disingenuous.

I tried to make it clear that I did not criticise Ofsted as an organisation, but instead the process of inspection per se.

I'd be just as critical of peer review if the conditions were not right. Even as a headteacher in my own schools, the very nature of judging performance is flawed.

Again, not good enough. I tried to remonstrate by making the point that being critical of inspection is no different from a teacher being critical of assessment.

The very fact that they blog to that effect would not mean they had to resign from their post as a teacher. It would not be seen as a criticism of their employer.

It was obvious that Ofsted had already made their decision prior to informing me. My views were not relevant.

As a last ditch effort, I reminded her that the blog is not associated with Ofsted in any way, but again, she was adamant. It had to be cropped.

I was being censured, gagged, call it what you like. However much I value the experience of inspecting schools, and trying to improve the process from within, I would much rather retain my right to write freely. So I resigned.

Most bizarrely, one of the incriminating comments I made was that I referred to the Ofsted team room and the writing of evidence forms (EFs)whilst in a school.

I mustn't do this apparently, as it gives away the inner workings of an inspection.

Presumably, no one is aware of this, and were always wondering what it was that went on during meetings with inspectors in the said team room. Full of EFs.

We should be demystifying the inspection process.

It's encouraging to read about the more personable side of HMI, who seem to be going to great lengths to reassure schools that we are beginning to take back ownership of the flawed process of inspection (there, I've said it again).

Anyone who doubts that the process is flawed need only look at the number of revised inspection frameworks we have had over the past five years.

When I signed up to become an inspector, I thought I could change things from within.

As a headteacher, I was tired of colleagues complaining about the quality of inspectors. 'They've never run a school and don't know what it's like!' they'd bemoan.They were probably right, to be honest, so one day I decided to do something about it and join them.

Get inside the tent and reform from within, in an attempt at giving the process some credibility.

I tried to get my colleagues to join me, but they wouldn't. I'd turned. I'd joined the dark side.

Having made the difficult decision to resign, I wrote to the national director almost a month ago, outlining my concerns about the matter and to question Ofsted's decision to censure my blog.

It also served as a heartfelt resignation letter. I haven't received a reply, although I did receive a terse two-line email from his office confirming that Ofsted have permanently suspended my inspector status with immediate effect.

Despite the overwhelming support I received, right now it feels like Ofsted won after all.

Surely a wiser person would have compromised and tried to do both? I do feel as if I've cut my nose off. Trust me, the blog is entirely inconspicuous, and hardly pulling up trees, let alone worth resigning over.

But unlike my blog, at least when I was out in schools inspecting, I really did feel as if I was making a tiny bit of difference. In my own small way, I was doing good as I go.

It all seems rather a waste of time now.

Andrew Morrish is executive headteacher at the Victoria Academies trust which runs Victoria Park Primary Academy, Devonshire Infant Academy, Devonshire Junior Academy in Smethwick, Rowley Park Primary Academy in Stafford and Northfield Manor Primary Academy in Birmingham.