Ofsted's failure to ask for feedback on single-phrase judgements
in its ‘Big Listen' consultation was “shortsighted and undermines
public messages about the inspectorate's willingness to change,”
the Association of School and College Leaders says in
its formal
response today.
Commenting on ASCL's submission, General Secretary Pepe Di'Iasio
said: “It is a big miss that the Big Listen failed to recognise
the importance of asking a direct question about this issue.
Single-phrase judgements don't work well for staff, parents or
children. They cause sky-high stress and anxiety, damaging staff
wellbeing and morale, and driving people out of the profession.
They're unhelpful to parents because they reduce everything a
school does to a blunt label. And negative judgements stigmatise
schools making it harder to secure improvement for children.
Reform is long overdue and cannot come soon enough.”
Our response, submitted ahead of the consultation deadline on
Friday night, says: “Although we welcome the Big Listen, we were
very disappointed that the consultation did not include a
transparent reflection on single-phrase judgements. Ofsted will
know that this has been a core suggestion of ASCL's and many
other organisations for some time, and was recently included in
the Education Select Committee's recommendations for Ofsted's
work with schools.
“We understand that it is not within Ofsted's control to enact
that reform, but not to include it as part of the Big Listen was
shortsighted and undermines public messages about the
inspectorate's willingness to change.”
And it goes on: “We strongly urge Ofsted to make the case
for the removal of graded judgements. It is the single biggest
reform that would alleviate anxiety in the system and begin to
rebuild trust.”
Our response advocates a new approach to inspection under which
schools would be inspected against a ‘report card' comprising a
set of agreed national standards. This should have a strong focus
on the provision for pupils with special educational needs and
those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If a school failed to meet one or more of these standards during
inspection, “early and intelligent intervention” could be put in
place to help the school meet the standard before the inspection
report is published. Safeguarding would be checked separately
through an annual audit as this “is too important to only be
inspected every four years.”
The response also highlights concerns that inspections too often
place too much emphasis on the voices of a small group of pupils.
“While pupil voice is undeniably an important part of inspection
activity, it must always be triangulated with other evidence,” it
says.
