Given the recent inquest findings into the tragic death of head teacher Ruth Perry, conversations consuming the sector are once again and quite understandably centred upon Ofsted and how as regulators in England they fulfil their legal duties to raise standards of care and education for children.
While the broader aspects that led to Ruth to take her own life when her primary school in Caversham was judged inadequate by inspectors in November 2022 continue to be explored, there seems to be two significant topics of conversation right now.
The first centres on the how Ofsted inspect the safeguarding elements of their Education Inspection Framework (EIF) and their subsequent conclusions that determine an inadequate judgment when practice is deemed to be unsafe.
The second places a clear emphasis upon conduct and behaviours demonstrated by some Ofsted inspectors that school leaders, and indeed early years leaders and managers, have experienced during inspection and subsequent interactions with Ofsted as a whole.
Safeguarding and Ofsted inspection
Conversations after the inspection of Caversham Primary School scrutinised the reasons why they had been downgraded.
The report makes clear a number of areas where safeguarding was deemed ineffective. Emphasis was placed upon leaders having weak understanding of safeguarding requirements and procedures, poor record keeping, gaps in employment checks and insufficient oversight.
There were some positives however and the inspection recognised that staff did know how to identify risks to pupils and knew where and who to report concerns.
The conclusion was that weakness posed a ‘potential risk to pupils’, meaning that any judgement made by Ofsted would be limited, a phrase often used by Ofsted, signifying the outcome as a clear inadequate grade.
When challenged Ofsted defended their position, proclaiming that their inspection judgment was secure.
It’s difficult to comment on the evidence of an inspection, especially as the published report is in part the summary of what inspectors have found and the reasons for their judgement. All of course, referenced within the context and ‘best fit’, another Ofsted familiar phrase, of the current inspection framework.
When inspection reports conclude safeguarding is not effective, this accounts for a wide range of reasons. These can include:
- breaches in legislation and Government guidance:
- poor safeguarding cultures and practices:
- a general lack of knowledge and understanding of how to keep children safe.
Ofsted (2023) determined that ‘effective safeguarding means having no serious and / or widespread issues, with safeguarding practice that put children at risk from harm, but could mean that there are minor issues, such as technicalities in paperwork, that do not put children at risk’.
In the aftermath of Ruth’s death questions were asked about how inspectors could conclude the effectiveness of safeguarding in such as short period of time i.e. an inspection. I do believe the measure of safeguarding risks can be easily determined and that time to draw upon a conclusion doesn’t necessarily make a difference to an outcome.
Inspectors who are knowledgeable and experienced in safeguarding and child protection matters will be able to make secure judgments about the extent to which professionals safeguard and protect children.
I am better placed to comment on what this looks like in the early years than in schools.
For a number of years I have raised concerns about the way that some early years inspectors judge safeguarding and child protection knowledge and practices.
My concerns focus upon poor knowledge and an inability to contextualise risks for children beyond quizzing staff about perceived relevant types of abuse or the trending themes that inspectors assume are most prevalent. Sadly, I hear many stories from settings who struggle to communicate their knowledge of their children and local safeguarding partnerships priorities with inspectors when this should be the most important line of enquiry.
Inspector conduct and behaviour
As the details of Ruth’s death began to emerge, Ofsted realising the direct link to her death and their inspection defended their organisation saying that inspectors had ‘behaved professionally and appropriately’ during the inspection.
The inquest found that Ofsted had ‘likely contributed to the death of Ruth’. Furthermore it stated that parts of the inspection were conducted in a manner which ‘lacked fairness, respect and sensitivity’.
The coroner believed that at times the inspectors’ conduct was ‘rude and intimidating’ and that parts of the inspection were very much done ‘to’ rather than ‘with’ the school.
Inspector conduct and poor behaviour has been a significant and prevailing theme raised by our North West Ofsted Big Conversation group with Ofsted. In all honestly it’s the subject of most frustration and one that Ofsted seem unable to address.
While our relationship with Ofsted has many positives this is the one area where we remain stuck. Their defence of some undefendable inspector behaviours and where we have been able to present conclusive evidence to them, currently remains.
I’m intrigued as to where we will go from here in the light of the inquest findings. I think that we need to find some balance right now. I say this because I know and work with many experienced and skilled Ofsted inspectors, including regulatory inspectors whose professional insight and ability to step in when things are dangerously wrong is appreciated.
I believe that Ofsted is in need of reform and should be open to wider independent scrutiny. I also recognise that the current political climate could mean that changes needed might take a while to be achieved but very much rely on Ofsted’s position to both accept and address them.