The further education sector’s relationship with inspection body Ofsted has been a strained one in recent years, characterised by disappointing inspection results and stinging criticism from former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw.

Despite efforts by his successor, Amanda Spielman, to “reset” the relationship, there appears to be little prospect of an upturn in inspection performance, with just two general FE colleges considered “outstanding” in 2016-17 and more than half rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” (see box, below).

Now one of the inspectorate’s most prominent critics has weighed into the debate. A new book by Frank Coffield, to be published next month, is calling for far-reaching reforms of how colleges and schools are assessed.

The emeritus professor at the University College London Institute of Education, best known for debunking the “learning styles” theory, has regularly crossed swords with Ofsted. In January, he penned an open letter to Spielman for Tes, calling for an overhaul of Ofsted to transform it into a “force for good”.

Radical new approach

In Will the Leopard Change its Spots?, Coffield argues that education is “too important and too expensive to be evaluated by a model of inspection that is not fit for the future”. He further calls for a radical new approach to eliminate the fear factor and release the “creativity of every student and staff member”. Coffield proposes a new system of inspection with no overall grade; instead, in each of nine areas (see box, right), inspectors would choose a point on a continuum from “needs a little” support to “needs a lot” of support. A “single adjective” can “never sum up all the complexities of the extraordinary diversity” within colleges, he writes.

To tackle the common accusation that judgements are predetermined based on data, Coffield proposes that inspectors should not be granted access to exam results until after they have produced an initial assessment. A “link inspector” would offer a point of contact before, during and after inspection, and a “college nominee would join the inspectors’ meetings to prevent misinterpretations”. “My main criticism is that attaching a single adjective, [such as] ‘good’ or ‘inadequate’, to a large FE college with, say, 20,000 students, 1,000 staff and 30 departments, is a statistical absurdity,” Coffield tells Tes. “Research has shown time and again that there is great variation within a college or a school, which cannot be captured by one adjective. So serious injustice is being done to many departments when they are all judged to be ‘inadequate’.”

Dudley College of Technology was rated “outstanding” in June. Principal Lowell Williams puts this down to ignoring Ofsted’s framework and focusing on learners’ needs. “Some of it is timing, some of it is effort, some of it is context,” he says. “The biggest factor in us being ‘outstanding’ is, three years ago, we moved away from Ofsted and stopped doing things in line with the framework.” He adds that Ofsted officials have “got themselves into a mess” with the common inspection framework for all schools and providers, which leaves general FE colleges with “the biggest challenge you have ever seen”.

Not everyone agrees that the system needs reform. Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, says: “Ofsted’s understanding of work-based learning hasn’t always been good, but we believe that under its current leadership, it is striking the right balance and is showing a willingness and fairness to listen to training providers’ concerns about its approach to inspection.”

@JBelgutay

Will the Leopard Change its Spots? by Frank Coffield will be published by UCL Institute of Education Press on 5 September

Coffield’s 9 inspection priorities

• Teaching, learning and assessment
• Professional learning
• Democracy
• Curriculum
• Learning communities
• Resources
• Context
• Self-improvement
• Obstacles to a self-improving system