Ruth Perry: The Tragic Victim of Ofsted’s Petty Bureaucrats 

Caversham Primary School sounds like a wonderful place for children to learn and grow. According to Ofsted, it is ‘welcoming’, ‘vibrant’, ‘warm and supportive’, and after being inspected in November last year, was judged to be ‘good’ in four of the five categories in which schools are measured. ‘Pupils’ behaviour in lessons is exemplary. They love to learn and relish the challenges that teachers provide.’

So, after being judged so positively in categories pretty fundamental to a school’s mission – the overall ‘quality of education’ and the ‘behaviour and attitudes’ of its pupils – why did Ofsted rather incongruously and, with tragic consequences, conclude that the school’s ‘overall effectiveness’ was inadequate?

Well, the report cited safeguarding concerns as the sole reason. Without reference to a specific incident or series of incidents that would help indicate the extent and severity of the problem, the authors highlighted a lack of adult supervision – notably during wet playtimes – that led to some older children making poor behaviour choices which went unnoticed, putting ‘others at risk of harm’.

Now, look, extent is important here. Schools are incredibly fluid and unpredictable places. At the end of a lesson, if a pupil suddenly breaks down and begins to cry – perhaps ready to disclose something important – or perhaps they suffer an epileptic fit, I, the classroom teacher, will be late to my break-time duty. That will lead to pupils being left unsupervised in the playground – an unforeseen problem that needs to be taken into account.

That is why inspectors need to be flexible and generous. For how long were the children unsupervised? Why were they unsupervised – is there a valid reason? Was this lack of supervision widespread or an isolated incident? These are important questions that need to be answered before making a judgement. Knowing Ofsted inspectors, though, either through time constraints or inclination, they wouldn’t have even considered such nuances let alone factored them into their decision-making.

But even if it were more than a badly-timed exception to the norm, would it be enough to so severely penalise a school in which, in the words of the inspectors, ‘incidents of bullying are rare’, ‘most pupils behave sensibly and rise to the staff’s high expectations’, and ‘pupils are doing well overall and are well prepared for their next stage of education’? Of course not. If it is a school-wide, systemic problem, it is an eminently rectifiable one.

That said, the report also criticises the school’s recording and tracking of safeguarding concerns, as well as the failure of its leadership to adequately carry out employment checks for some staff – an oversight that could ‘pose potential risks to pupils’.

Without wishing to downplay the potential seriousness of these failings, I feel it important to contextualise them. The report does not provide – or even allude to – one example of a child coming to harm due to these bureaucratic missteps.

In fact, during a particularly revealing passage, the report decries the staff’s inability to record concerns on the school’s online system while, in the same breath, celebrating their professionalism when it comes to identifying and reporting concerns. Indeed, according to the authors, pastoral support – surely an important aspect of safeguarding – is a major strength at Caversham Primary School. I know this sounds contentious, but perhaps good safeguarding doesn’t begin and end with an online system for recording concerns.

So, what’s going on here? Ofsted inspectors are predicating their overall judgement on bureaucratic shortcomings and what-ifs rather than pupil outcomes and observable reality.

The fact is that the staff at Caversham Primary School look after their young charges. They are safe, happy and the recipients of what appears to be a very good education – as reported by the Ofsted inspectors themselves. However, their systems for recording and tracking safeguarding concerns need to be updated and properly embedded. But that is a task that could be executed with both ease and haste. It’s not one that merits an overall judgement of ‘inadequate’.

When one considers the overall quality of education they provide, and the behaviour and attitudes of the school’s pupils, one can only conclude that Ofsted’s judgement is a hysterical reaction based on a blind obsession with petty bureaucracy. Caversham didn’t tick the right safeguarding boxes. They were even penalised for the poor attendance of some disadvantaged pupils. Goodness me. Here’s a novel idea: try blaming their parents.

Ofsted could learn something from the late Ms. Perry. Instead of tormenting schools with non sequiturs, use a bit of good old-fashioned common sense. She did. She knew her school and the children in her care. She didn’t need a spreadsheet to tell her.  And, according to the people who matter – the parents – her school was wonderful.

Wesley Smith is a teacher and writer.

Please follow and like us: