Ofsted's Big listen: is martyn Oliver actually listening?

Listening for movement in the mine (c) NIOSH (2018) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Listening_for_movement_in_the_mine.jpg

Ofsted have just published the results of their Big Listen research. The stated aim was to reset the damaged relationship between Ofsted, the education sector, and parents.

I have to say that I was reasonably sceptical about the process, not least because the main survey questions were quite vague. What interested me more however was how Ofsted would deal with the results of the main survey and additional research they conducted. Oftsed under Amanda Spielman engaged in a range of consultation exercised, but these were often inward looking, defensive actions to stave off criticism. So, are Ofsted under Martyn Oliver actually listening?
​
I have now spent some time analying the survey data and comparing this to the proposed actions. My first impression is that, yes, in terms of the questions which were asked, Ofsted do seem to be acknowledging the scale of the problem and where their priorities for change lie now. Whether this translates into action is another question, but awkward results do not seem to have been swept under the carpet.
​
I won’t go through all the headlines here, but I do want to focus on two responses from the main survey which I think are crucial in guiding what Ofsted do next and are critical in analysing whether the proposed responses are sufficient. I also want to offer some suggestions for further actions Ofsted might want to take to move forwards from this point.

Key Finding 1: Ofsted still have a key role
In terms of schools, the first major finding from the Big Listen is that there is broad agreement that Ofsted do have a key role to play in monitoring the quality of educational provision. However, that is not to say that their current remit is the right one. The greatest support comes in terms of Ofsted:

• Exploring and communicating the pupil experience of education 
• Monitoring pupil safety and wellbeing
• Ensuring educational settings are equitable and inclusive 

There remains support for Ofsted monitoring different aspects of the school experience. Interestingly however, the schools part of the survey has no direct question about whether inspectors should comment on the examination outcomes of pupils. The question of data monitoring and comparison is asked in the EYFS section and receives lukewarm support.
 
Key Finding 2: Ofsted are currently failing in their role
The second significant finding I think is that only 13% of respondents agreed that Ofsted gradings gave a good indication of the quality of the schools system. Indeed singe word judgments also received similar wrath and were opposed by 83% of school respondents. This is a fairly damning indictment, and one which the report does engage with. Similarly low confidence was expressed in EYFS and the ITE sector as well. This is significant as it suggests that, whilst many people recognise the important role Ofsted could and should play, there is very little sense that the sector feels this role is being fulfilled. It is also a finding supported by the fact that only 29% of school respondents said that they trusted Ofsted. This figure was slightly higher in ITE (47%) and EYFS (49%), though still under the critical mass. Equally, only 40% of respondents felt that inspectors had good expertise and knowledge of the sector they were inspecting, with even fewer (36%) believing that knowledge of SEND was adequate. 

What is very clear from the Big Listen is that Ofsted cannot simply carry on by making a few tweaks. Again, Oliver does acknowledge this. This is where the proposals come in: Ofsted's promises for changes which will refocus its work and restore trust. 

Do the proposals make sense?
The Big Listen report outlines a series of proposed changes. I want to consider each one in light of the two core findings from the Big Listen, which I have outlined above.
​
Proposal 1: We will reform our inspection framework.
I am actually really pleased to see this as item 1 on the list. It directly addresses the issue that a lack of confidence in the inspection system ultimately has its roots in the inadequacies of the current framework.

The current Ofsted framework did a great deal to shift the focus away from a relentless (and often problematic) pursuit of exam results at the expense of careful and considered curriculum construction. However, the one size for all approach of the current framework, and its problematic connections with a single mode of educational thinking have been significant challenges for the sector as a whole. And this is before we consider the fact that many inspectors have wildly different levels of expertise (and even less training) in the subjects they are charged with inspecting. 

The suggested changes here include having a greater focus on pupil voice (an aspect which seems to have held little sway in recent years), but also the creation of rubrics to make it clear to schools what is expected. I have argued for a long time now that schools should be party to the training Ofsted inspectors receive so that the standards against which they are judged are more transparent. The challenge here is whether these rubrics can be created and also remain sympathetic to having high quality subject input at Secondary and allowing for phase specific expertise in Primary. One risk is a return to GCSE or KS2 outcomes data as a primary measure of curricular impact. I think this would be a risky and retrograde step. Much educational time was wasted in the early 2000s with schools trying to ‘game’ outcomes to secure their Ofsted grade, resulting in significant curricular narrowing.

It is promising to see that the rubrics may well be different depending on the age phase and that context will be considered. The real proof of this pudding however will be in the actual process by which the framework is drafted and approved. Wide consultation is necessary to ensure we don’t reinvent old problems.
 
Proposal 2: We will introduce report cards.
A move to report cards is also something to be welcomed cautiously. The commitment to move away from single word judgments means we might actually get useful descriptions of schools back on Ofsted reports. The last 10 years have seen school (and ITE) reports turned into identikit documents, with comments seemingly pulled from word banks. It would be good to return to a system whereby a more detailed description of a school is provided and where the single word judgments don’t dominate. Having worked in schools in all four categories I know very well the impact these can have. Equally however, care needs to be taken not to focus too much on exam outcomes on these report cards as these in turn can skew curriculum making across the school.

A big challenge here though is time. The inspectorate have struggled to produce even the short report required under the current system. This is partly down to the funding of inspectors, but also the fact that the ITE system became so vast and fragmented and required more inspectors. Once again, the proof will be in how well Ofsted consult on the format for these report cards and the information they need to include.
 
Proposal 3: We will strengthen the regulation and inspection of children’s social care, in partnership with the government and the sector.
This one is absolutely vital. Putting children’s voices at the heart of this process will be tricky but is crucial to ensuring greater equity. This goes beyond my area of expertise however, so I will leave this one here. 
 
Proposal 4: We will foster a culture of integrity in which we always treat people with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect
This proposal includes sensitivity and consistency training and a new provider helpline. It remains to be seen what impact this will have. One aspect which I think is missing here is the consideration of Ofsted’s own recruitment and monitoring processes, which have clearly been failing on multiple occasions and have led to a culture in which the organisation often closes ranks or refuses to acknowledge failures. This commitment absolutely has to go well beyond a helpline and a few hours of online training – I would really like to see more formal monitoring of inspections by independent bodies, or a better system of getting feedback from schools on the performance and conduct of inspectors. Having a reporting system is fine, but many will worry about the risks. Given the massive lack of trust, this needs more focus I think.
 
Proposal 5: We will launch the Ofsted Academy.
This proposal hits at the heart of issues around trust in the inspectorate. In years past, schools and ITE providers were routinely inspected by experts in their field. In recent years Ofsted inspections have been conducted by those who were available. This has led to some significant issues as the subject framework demanded more and more subject expertise but this was not matched with subject expert inspectors.

There has been a long standing funding commitment issue at Ofsted with relation to proper training for inspectors. The commitment to having inspector seconded into provider settings sound positive but may indicate a continued reliance on generic expertise, bolstered by short ‘placements’. It will be interesting so see if the Ofsted Academy approach solves these issues or focuses more exclusively on consistent practice. Consistency is important, but consistently poor inspection is just as problematic as wildly erratic inspection.

What is not here is a commitment to having subject expertise or phase expertise in the system. Although there have been issues with the way Ofsted have operated, the role of subject leads exploring the state of play across the nation in relation to a subject has been valuable. In previous iterations of inspection we have seen subject leads play an important role in highlighting areas of success and for improvement in a subject area nationally. This would help significantly in creating dialogue.

I am very interested to know if the course and materials of the Academy will be publicly available. Consultation and oversight will be key.
 
Proposal 6: We have updated our code of conduct.
Not much to say here, other than the fact it was long overdue.
 
Proposal 7: We will track whether perceptions of our culture are improving over time.
This is an important commitment and one I am happy to see. Some useful data has been gleaned during the Big Listen but there are refinements which could be made to the monitoring questions to ensure Ofsted are indeed improving. Having some independent advice on the monitoring questions would be very valuable as would a commitment to a more formal process of external scrutiny – someone to watch the ‘watchmen’.
 
Proposal 8: We will be a learning organisation that operates transparently, listens to challenge and takes action to change.
The commitment is key but the proof will be seen in the next few years.
 
Proposal 9: We will improve how we engage parents, carers and providers through our inspections of education settings, and all year round.
The questions asked in the research did not generate a lot of data around this but the Parent View survey has been a problematic tool for many years now - yielding poor quality data and often drawing on a tiny sample of parent views. It is good to see a commitment to updating means for seeking parent and carer feedback on schools and the experiences of their children. It would be helpful also to ensure the Parent View data was useful to schools as well as to the inspectorate.
 
Proposal 10: We will hear from children about their experiences of education and care.
Again an important commitment to restore trust and validity. I am hoping there is work underway to engage with experts on how to best capture pupils views and to ensure that schools do not ‘hide’ problem students during inspections. This is important but quite delicate work as it is giving a voice to the most vulnerable. I am hoping to see significant transparency about the underlying research and choice of methods.
 
Proposal 11: We will establish 6 national hubs to improve consistency across all our work.
I think this sounds positive in principle.
 
Proposal 12: We are changing how we handle complaints.
These changes are all long overdue and it is good to see that the trial of complaints panels with external representative are here to stay. It will be important for information about how these panels are convened, if not the names of those involved, to be in the public record.
 
Proposal 13: We will become more transparent.
It is really good too see a commitment here to publishing training materials for inspectors via the Academy. There is of course a danger that this then leads to senior leaders spending too much time trying to second guess the inspection process. However if the framework is right then the inspection training should also enable senior leaders to consider core aspects of how their school is run and operated. If this is done carefully it could be powerful.

The sharing of process and evidence which has led to a conclusion is also important here.
 
Proposal 14: We will do more to share our insights and data, and ground our work in evidence.
There has been a huge battle in education for the last 14 years over what constitutes ‘the best available evidence.’ It will be interesting to see whether there will be a return to exploring a broader evidence base in decision making, rather than a more ideological selection of evidence as was seen in some decisions under Spielman. I am awaiting the research outputs with interest.
 
Proposal 15: We are increasing our engagement and consultation with stakeholders.
This is positive but will again need to have openness and transparency about the selection process at the core. We cannot continue with a situation where key people are brought in via nods and nudges. I am interested to see how the recruitment to these groups is done and how the process is shared.
 
Summing up
Right. I think I’ve exhausted myself now. All in all, this looks like a positive change of direction, however there are a number of unresolved questions about the status of subject and phase expertise in schools (and ITE). The real proof however will be in how rapidly and how openly these changes are now brought in. It looks like it will be an interesting year.