John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector. He is Vice-President of the Conservative Education Society.
Coroners’ courts are unusual, in that they not only hear cases, but investigate them. If the coroner is not satisfied with evidence, he or she may demand more, and will interrogate the evidence publicly and in detail. In doing so, Heidi Connor followed the example of Thomas Wakely, founder of The Lancet, in the case of Frederick White, who died after a military flogging in 1846. In both cases, the authorities maintained that they had done nothing wrong, and the coroner found otherwise.
It is a new experience for Ofsted to have the evidence of a school preferred to its own, not least because that evidence is so rarely heard. The chief inspector accused Ofsted’s critics of trying to discredit it. The coroner has done a much more effective job, tearing into Ofsted for making assertions without evidence. The inquest also exposed the dictatorial action of Ofsted’s regional director in overruling the HMI on the ground by ordering him to make the fatal judgement, and the disgraceful lack of support from the Local Authority’s agency, which blocked Ruth Perry’s challenge without her consent.
The issues leading to this state of affairs began decades ago, and reflect a schism over the purposes of education that is summed up in the legislation of Labour and Conservative governments. Labour’s “Every Child Matters”, its merger of education and social services, and its abolition of subject reports, show a clear, anti-intellectual direction that it will resume if and when it gets the chance. Conservatives have pressed for mass conversion of schools to academies, which, as both the inspector and Ruth Perry knew, was the real reason for the conflict at Caversham. Schools believe that the purpose of inspection has been to find an excuse to fail them, and, despite some good recent appointments to HMI, it is difficult not to share this view. There was no good reason to fail Caversham, and one very bad one, enforced by the regional director with the approval of HMCI.
Ofsted has lost all credibility with the profession, including many of those on its payroll, and it is difficult to see a way forward. Neither main party wants to restore inspection to pre-2005 HMI standards, partly because Labour does not accept the central criteria of progress and achievement, and partly because negative inspection judgements are bad for business. Labour took pains to avoid them in the early years of the millennium, and reports on academies and free schools have been very mixed. HMI over the years have also been guilty of making policy by the back door, for example over Plowden and SEND, and is not accountable for any but the most egregious of their mistakes. The Select Committee has carried out a review, but seems far from any conclusion – I hope I’m wrong on this point – while the NEU wants to abolish Ofsted, a potentially dangerous step
What can be salvaged? The short inspection format devised by Sir Michael Tomlinson was economic, thorough without being overwhelming – inspectors, for example, were not allowed to ask for additional paperwork – and had a safety valve, in that a school could not be failed without a subsequent full inspection. It should be studied. HMCI could, and should, also ensure that inspectors are competent in the areas they inspect. This does not mean a rigid primary/secondary division, as people may be competent in both, but it does mean that they should be checked to ensure that they are. An inspection by a person who demonstrably knows less about the work than those in the setting they are inspecting is professionally insulting, and must stop. The HMCI designate, Sir Martin Oliver, is a successful CEO, but apparently with no experience of inspection. This is a big issue, as the skill sets of headteachers and executives are not the same as those of inspectors. For the sake of the education system, and everyone in it, pupils and staff, we can only hope that he makes a better job of it than the others who have followed Mike Tomlinson.