Let down by a lack of primary expertise
* Of the five inspectors, only the RGI had ever taught in a primary.
* Not one had held a post in a school since September 1990, which indicated their limited direct experience of both the national curriculum and local management.
* The inspector leading on science and PE was a former secondary specialist in mathematics and information technology.
* The inspector leading on history and geography was a former secondary integrated studies and sociology teacher.
* The inspector leading on special needs spent her entire teaching career in a grammar school.
* The inspector leading on efficiency had never managed a school.
* The inspector leading on assessment, recording and reporting had not taught in a school since 1985, so had never assessed pupils against national curriculum levels of attainment.
The handbook for inspection says that “registered inspectors must ensureIthat the team possesses a range of specialisms appropriate to the task”. In this light, the chair of governors wrote to the RGI, requesting that he give “serious and urgent consideration to strengthening the team by introducing an inspector with actual primary teaching and special needs experience”.
The disappointing reply was three-fold. First, all of the inspectors had been involved in LEA inspections of primary schools, which gave them the experience they needed. Second, the inspector leading in a particular area has to consider evidence and opinions from all members of the team before arriving at a judgment, so actual subject expertise is not necessary. Third, the CVs had been sent to the contracts department as part of the tendering process; OFSTED found them acceptable. As such, he was not prepared to change the team.
OFSTED’s failure to recognise primary teaching as an area of considerable expertise has let us down. Would it accept a tender from a team of predominantly primary specialists, with experience in, for example, early years, key stage 2 assessment and primary special needs, for a secondary school inspection? I think not.
Our report - which was positive, indeed complimentary - will please parents and will provide us with good publicity. But it will not serve to improve our performance because we strongly question the validity of the judgments, both negative and positive, made by this team.
If the inspection of primary schools is to pay anything but lip-service to the Government’s ideals, then OFSTED must reject all but the highest quality tenders from teams with genuinely appropriate - predominantly primary school - backgrounds.
Martin Broadley is head of Ditton Church of England Junior School, Aylesford, Kent
Keep reading for just £1 per month
You've reached your limit of free articles this month. Subscribe for £1 per month for three months and get:
- Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
- Exclusive subscriber-only stories
- Award-winning email newsletters