Unfortunately I was unable to attend the recent Learning First conference in Wolverhampton, but I did manage to follow some of the tweets. This one in particular caught my attention:
Marilyn Mottram HMI talking about what Ofsted are looking for #LearningFirst pic.twitter.com/MJDrm3cUkf
— school data updates (@jpembroke) October 1, 2016
As you can see by reading the thread below the tweet, it’s possible that Marylin Mottram didn’t actually say this was what Ofsted were looking for, but that’s certainly what was inferred by some members of the audience.
In response, I tweeted the following:
As long as Ofsted ‘look for’ instead of ‘look at’ it will part of the problem https://t.co/IskRfLDJDH
— David Didau (@LearningSpy) October 1, 2016
As regular readers will know, I’ve changed by position on Ofsted in recent years and consider Sean Harford, the National Director for Education, one of the good guys. However, I was disappointed by what appeared to be his defence of this message. Although he suggested my criticism didn’t make much sense, being an eminently reasonable man he’s offered – if I can articulate my opposition clearly – to reconsider. So here goes.
When Ofsted suggest a thing is desirable it’s interpreted as what inspectors want to see. This is unfortunate, but is probably unavoidable considering the high stakes nature of school inspections. Ofsted have made efforts to undo much of this in the last few years with thoughtful revisions of the Inspection Handbook and various ‘myth busting’ documents. But still, when a HMI speaks, school leaders listen. They remember the bad old days when inspectors really did want to see all sorts of gimmikry. They panic and start mandating all sorts of nonsense in the hopes of impressing inspectors and often end up just increasing teachers’ workload with little positive impact on students.
This specific advice might seem innocuous enough. After all, what’s wrong with children who “love the challenge of learning, are interested learners, are resilient to failure, are curious… keen to learn, eager to know how to improve, able to learn from their mistakes” and “keen to seek out and use new information”? These are all admirable qualities, but how would you know they were present in children? What more important: children who visibly display these qualities or who quietly get on with the business of learning? I know from experience that there are children who display none of these qualities and yet still seem to do exceptionally well at school. It’s the qualities themselves that matter, not poor proxies. These may be things we want children to be, but it’s not a useful list of things we want to see.
However, I can well imagine inspectors visiting a school and deciding they haven’t seen sufficient curiosity or resilience. And if I can imagine it, so too can school leaders anxious about the outcome of their next inspection. Lamentable as it is, I can understand exactly why school leaders attempt to anticipate and demonstrate what they think Ofsted want instead of focussing on supporting teachers to teach to the best of their ability.
So, did Marilyn Mottram offer advice? Honestly, I’ve no idea. Sean says she didn’t and as I wasn’t there I really can’t comment. Sean says that “HMI have a lot to contribute and this can be done without ‘advice giving’.” I’m sure that’s true. Sean’s contributions to the education debate are always nuanced, thoughtful and made in the knowledge that anything he says can easily be misinterpreted. To my knowledge no one has ever tweeted a slide from one of Sean’s presentations which has ever been interpreted as a list of ‘what Ofsted want’. Maybe Marilyn Mottram really was engaging in a conversation about interesting student characteristics, maybe not. But when she’s speaking as a HMI with the Ofsted logo in the corner of her slides, she needs to be very careful about the inferences that might be drawn.
My advice would be that if a HMI ever shows a slide with any kind of bullet pointed list, it ought to be prefaced with the words THIS IS NOT WHAT OFSTED WANT OR EXPECT TO SEE. Just in case.
I share your concerns David.
I see two separate but related dangers with this slide:
i) All these things are objectless. What is the object of students’ curiosity? What knowledge or thinking are they interested *in*, and what does it amount to? What if they ‘know how to improve’ but what they ‘know’ turns out to be how to jump a set of hoops to reach a meaningless increment in a spurious progression ladder? The harsh truth is, a pupil might manifest all these attributes and be learning little, or learning inefficiently, because the curriculum is poor.
ii) While these things are all thoroughly good, and of course to see them is likely to tell you something very positive, the danger is that some schools will now feel they have to show them. They will look for, endeavour to cultivate directly and try to evidence these things as primary and discernible indicators of quality. But these things might come – and perhaps come more readily – from quite other things, such as the layers of knowledge that breed passion for more knowledge, or the years of practice that bring joy, artfulness and creativity through fluency.
“As long as Ofsted ‘look for’ instead of looking ‘at’ it will be part of the problem.”
> As an inspection body they need to look both ‘for’ and ‘at’ evidence. You can see this in the short guide for another sector’s inspection. You can also see there is observation b/w professional and service user: https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/pharmacystandardsguide/what-happens-during-inspection
When Ofsted suggest a thing is desirable ….. school leaders listen. They panic and start mandating … with little positive impact on students’.
> The failing here rests with weak management who don’t understand their vision and plan and who don’t sound to be very resilient as senior managers.
“It’s the qualities themselves that matter, not poor proxies. These may be things we want children to be, but it’s not a useful list of things we want to see.”
> Hopefully inspectors are not looking for Stepford students but value different personalities and temperaments exist. An attitude to learning can’t be determined simply from looking ‘at’ a child or at their work but in triangulating it with listening to the child and understanding their learning history. Does this happen in inspections – no idea.
“So, did Marilyn Mottram offer advice? Honestly, I’ve no idea. Sean says she didn’t and as I wasn’t there I really can’t comment.”
> The slide had no context. Jamie’s tweet caused your concern in stating ‘looking for’.
Sean says that “HMI have a lot to contribute and this can be done without ‘advice giving’ … she needs to be very careful about the inferences that might be drawn.”
> Agreed. When Major moved to a national inspection scheme with Ofsted the historical mixing of local school improvement and inspection does not appear to have sufficiently altered to achieve impartial and independent inspection (I’m willing to listen if I’m wrong here). Ongoing local and national political influence appear to continue; as does Ofsted involvement in school improvement at a local and national level in the same organisations they inspect. I think HMI inspectors are acutely aware of this vulnerability.
My advice would be that if a HMI ever shows a slide with any kind of bullet pointed list, it ought to be prefaced with the words THIS IS NOT WHAT OFSTED WANT OR EXPECT TO SEE. Just in case.
> The handbook is clear they expect to see good student attitudes to learning. I refer you back to my view on school management with a propensity to panic, and quietly mutter *get a grip*.