By David Williams
26 November 2009
Education regulator Ofsted has been forced to defend itself from a volley of criticisms of its methods and its claim that it improves school standards.
Some of the attacks, from MPs, experts, teachers and councils, questioned the future of central government regulation in general. They came as the watchdog launched its annual report on schools and children’s services on November 24.
Liberal Democrat schools spokesman David Laws said Ofsted was in danger of neglecting its core work on educational standards in favour of the ‘child protection agenda’, for which it was given responsibility in 2007.
‘The government must consider whether Ofsted should be split up, with oversight of children’s social services departments being hived off to a separate inspectorate,’ he said.
Professor Malcolm Prowle, a public management expert at Nottingham Business School, said it was time to reconsider whether regulators such as Ofsted were benefiting public services.
‘I would question the value of these bodies in the current fiscal situation – and particularly the intensive approach of Ofsted,’ he said.
Highlighting the hidden financial cost of inspections on schools, he added: ‘Can we afford this range of regulatory bodies when we’re going to be making huge cuts in public spending?’
The Opposition, which has pledged to cull quangos and do away with local government Comprehensive Area Assessments, accused Ofsted of box-ticking and trying to cover too much ground.
Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb said: ‘We need to move away from the overly-bureaucratic data-driven inspection process we currently have.’ But there was still a ‘clear role’ for an education regulator.
Ofsted’s annual report, covering the 2008/09 academic year, showed an increase in the numbers of schools graded ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, with 69% now occupying the two highest ratings – up from 64% the year before. There was also a rise in the proportion of childcare services rated good or outstanding – now 65%, up from 56% a year ago.
Patrick Leeson, Ofsted’s development director for education and care, told Public Finance: ‘The annual report very clearly shows significant improvement in both childcare and education. That has to stand as a really strong bit of evidence that there are some real outcomes being achieved for the investment in [inspection] activity.’
Launching the report, chief inspector Christine Gilbert hit back at critics. ‘Weak regulation serves no-one’s real interest – not even vested interests,’ she said. ‘Ofsted must not pull its punches – our job is to speak up for children and learners and I make no apology for that.’ Gilbert identified a ‘stubborn core of inadequate teaching’.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers criticised Ofsted’s ‘demoralising’ attack on frontline workers, while the Local Government Association accused the watchdog of feeding parents’ fears over child safety, and giving sweeping, context-free judgements rather than constructive advice.
26 November 2009
Education regulator Ofsted has been forced to defend itself from a volley of criticisms of its methods and its claim that it improves school standards.
Some of the attacks, from MPs, experts, teachers and councils, questioned the future of central government regulation in general. They came as the watchdog launched its annual report on schools and children’s services on November 24.
Liberal Democrat schools spokesman David Laws said Ofsted was in danger of neglecting its core work on educational standards in favour of the ‘child protection agenda’, for which it was given responsibility in 2007.
‘The government must consider whether Ofsted should be split up, with oversight of children’s social services departments being hived off to a separate inspectorate,’ he said.
Professor Malcolm Prowle, a public management expert at Nottingham Business School, said it was time to reconsider whether regulators such as Ofsted were benefiting public services.
‘I would question the value of these bodies in the current fiscal situation – and particularly the intensive approach of Ofsted,’ he said.
Highlighting the hidden financial cost of inspections on schools, he added: ‘Can we afford this range of regulatory bodies when we’re going to be making huge cuts in public spending?’
The Opposition, which has pledged to cull quangos and do away with local government Comprehensive Area Assessments, accused Ofsted of box-ticking and trying to cover too much ground.
Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb said: ‘We need to move away from the overly-bureaucratic data-driven inspection process we currently have.’ But there was still a ‘clear role’ for an education regulator.
Ofsted’s annual report, covering the 2008/09 academic year, showed an increase in the numbers of schools graded ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, with 69% now occupying the two highest ratings – up from 64% the year before. There was also a rise in the proportion of childcare services rated good or outstanding – now 65%, up from 56% a year ago.
Patrick Leeson, Ofsted’s development director for education and care, told Public Finance: ‘The annual report very clearly shows significant improvement in both childcare and education. That has to stand as a really strong bit of evidence that there are some real outcomes being achieved for the investment in [inspection] activity.’
Launching the report, chief inspector Christine Gilbert hit back at critics. ‘Weak regulation serves no-one’s real interest – not even vested interests,’ she said. ‘Ofsted must not pull its punches – our job is to speak up for children and learners and I make no apology for that.’ Gilbert identified a ‘stubborn core of inadequate teaching’.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers criticised Ofsted’s ‘demoralising’ attack on frontline workers, while the Local Government Association accused the watchdog of feeding parents’ fears over child safety, and giving sweeping, context-free judgements rather than constructive advice.
