Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Ofsted?

I thought all teachers were. But the longer I spend in the trenches, the more I wonder why. Do you know anyone who's lost their job because of an inspection? Do you even know of a school which has been closed because of one? In fact, failing an Ofsted seems a fast-track route to improving facilities and increasing revenue. And this where I was confidently informed a few years ago that "you can pass your Ofsted on the quality of your wall displays alone." Good Godfrey Cambridge, that seems wrong.

The government harps constantly on "teaching and learning", but it seems that this is not what Ofsted inspects. If not, why not? Is it because the government doesn't know what it's doing, or is it because they cannot tell the truth about their agenda for schools? Because surely the push against truancy has as much to do with keeping potential Artful Dodgers under adult supervision as it does with "raising standards"; and the amount of social work now undertaken in school time and/or using school as the first stop seems steadily rising.


Furthermore, Ofsted's hands are pretty much tied in the case of schools that are clearly succeeding. Where exam results exceed 70% A*-C they cannot find too much fault, even if the whole school does nothing but sit at desks copying all day, every day. It is the weaker schools - those "failing" - which are most vulnerable to Ofsted meddling. Shame it doesn't meddle with the right things.

I spent last week teaching in an academy. Academy, of course, is the Newspeak term for a school so bad that it would have been closed down had not some bright spark decided that changing its name to something derived from the Greek would surely revolutionise its intake, culture and results - presumably in that order.

Judging by what I found this revolution is taking some time. Much of the school suffered from being permanently locked. The children expressed their feelings about this on my third day by entirely removing the lock of a classroom, which then locked us in, necessitating emergency calls to the switchboard for repairs. Interestingly, they were thrilled to be locked in, which was particularly strange because it was very much the norm for children to leave lessons at will, sometimes to call on other classrooms, sometimes to return, disappointed with the corridors, sometimes to vanish into the ether. Although there were great legions of the damned sweeping the corridors in search of errant children, they were seldom returned, though by the end of any lesson there were usually a couple of little faces at the windows of the door making sign-language at the inmates.

It was also noticeable that this school had little belief in setting cover. This is singularly imprudent in a situation where you have recruited a non-specialist (as an English specialist obviously I was teaching maths), but it turns out they have difficulty in getting any teachers at all. How can a school which does not put a subject specialist in front of every class in the core curriculum for over 95% of the timetabled classes should pass Ofsted?

How can a school which has had either a core curriculum member of staff off sick for over a year (well, bar the day you have to go back to extend your sick leave), or which has not had a member of staff in post for timetabled lessons for months at a stretch, be deemed to be anything other than failing? And if it's failing, why not close it down?

Not because this would seriously challenge government's fascinating social experimentation in schools, surely? Throwing as it would a thousand odd kids, probably of the most problematic nature, onto the streets, or worse, into their parents' care, for the next stage of their education.

Frankly, most of the kids do not deserve this, but a significant minority do. I don't feel that the presence of the 12-year-old girl who sat on the desk making remarks about my clothes, asking if I spit or swallow, refusing the leave the room and telling me she didn't have to pay me any respect was doing anything but setting a bad example and being allowed to do so. The only point to her presence was destructive. The best thing for all concerned would have been to remove her and to exclude her until she agreed to behave reasonably.

No Ofsted inspection would ever see such a child. She would be headed off at the pass big style. But does it even need an inspection to see that such a school is in trouble? Analysis of the sick leave, payroll and timetable would tell most of the story. As for the rest; teachers utterly exhausted with abuse and lack of support, children wandering about at will, stones through windows during lesson time and kids confronting teachers who ask them to sit down at a desk or pick up their sandwich crusts - a day looking around would tell the rest.

Children who don't behave must be excluded; teachers who don't teach must be replaced, and until the government shut and up and fund this, they should be allowed to make no further tinkerings in the land of learning.