OFSTED and the Power of Delusion

 For the first time in a long time, I had to stop myself from shouting at the TV. The OFSTED supremo, Amanda Spielman, seen above, was on the BBC about a week ago, defending the inspection results of Caversham Primary School. These results, as we know, contributed directly to the suicide of the much-loved headteacher, Ruth Perry. Ms Spielman's comments had wider connotations, and I think them worth commenting upon here.

Quoted in The Mirror from the BBC interview, Spielman said:

"I think the findings were secure and I think the inspection team worked with the professionalism and sensitivity I would expect from our inspectors. Pressed on whether she had any concerns at all over the downgrading of the school from outstanding to inadequate, she added: "From what I've seen I don't have any reason to doubt the inspection".

Let's ponder that. When we examine the reason for the school's downgrading, we find that the school was performing well in most areas. OFSTED, however, were not impressed. They found the school: “welcoming and vibrant”, staff/pupil relations “warm and supportive” but there was lack of “appropriate supervision during breaktimes” so pupils were “potentially at risk of harm."

Quite what is meant by appropriate supervision is not made clear. Professor Julia Waters, Ruth Perry's sister, quoted on WSWS, elaborated:

"Apparently, Julia told BBC South, an altercation in the playground between two boys and another incident involving a boy performing a floss dance, was the “scant” and “sensationalist” evidence for inadequate safeguarding. The playground fight was interpreted by Ofsted as evidence of child-on-child abuse and the dance as the sexualisation of children."

Speaking as a retired primary school teacher of 34 years' experience, and having done more playground duties than Spielman has had hot dinners, I can say that I have seen and intervened in an abundance of playground altercations, some very violent indeed. I don't know what a floss dance is, but I have seen numerous manifestations of what can be termed inappropriate behaviour. If fights and dances in the playground were grounds to fail a school, then half the schools I have ever taught in (full time and supply) would be judged "Inadequate". I note that OFSTED did not ask whether these incidents were  commonplace or not - nor if the pupils involved had special needs. And, of course, no positive or supportive measures were put in place by Ms Spielman's merry men and women. Downgrading was the order of the day, and a popular, caring headteacher was driven to take her own life. And Spielman has no doubts that her team did the right thing. Such is the power of delusion.

In a previous post, on March 24,  I have looked at previous teacher suicides related to OFSTED inspection,. WSWS notes another:

"Perry is not the first tragic victim of Ofsted inspections. Carol Woodward was the head of Woodford Primary School near Plymouth and took her own life in 2015 after a negative Ofsted inspection".

Even the normally anti-teacher Daily Mail reported on this case: 

"A popular headmistress hanged herself after Ofsted inspectors rated her school 'inadequate' when they visited ...Carol Ann Woodward was found in the garage of her home in Plymstock, Devon in July following a 'swift decline' in her mental health".

Ms Woodward's tragic death was not widely reported in the media.

 Research by the Hazards Campaign charity and University of Leeds has implicated Ofsted in coroners’ reports into the deaths of 10 teachers over the past 25 years. It reports teachers suffering cardiac arrests, strokes and nervous breakdowns due to the stress of inspections.  Andrew Morrish, a former head and inspector and founder of the helpline Headrest, said most calls from stressed heads are about Ofsted. "Inspection is a sensitive process", says Spielman. Yeah, right.

Another comment of Ms Spielman's delusional comments is of particular interest to me. She said, relating to inspections: "For the vast majority of schools, I know that it's a positive and affirming experience."

I found that statement hilarious. I have been in a school that failed its inspection, gone into Special Measures, been inspected by HMI inspectors every term for two years, emerging to a variation of educational parole. I can attest that none of us staff found it positive and affirming. We were just heartily glad that it was over.

On the other hand, as a school governor, I have played a part in a school previously rated as Good being inspected again after five years, and again being graded as Good. This time, all staff, governors and children breathed a huge sigh of relief. Positive? Affirming? Maybe - but I did help the the sole inspector leave through the school gate after the final briefing, which was surely an affirmation of a caring environment in the school. The most positive aspect for all staff is the knowledge that OFSTED won't be back for a while.

Ms Spielman has said that Ruth Perry's death was a "tragic event" and told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg show she was willing to speak with the family. As Ruth Perry's family have been justifiably outraged at the consequences of the inspection, the meeting, if it happens, should be a lively event.

Labour's Mistake: Tactical, not Strategic

 

Putting it simply, the Labour Party's Twitter post pictured above has not been well received. As we know, it has been condemned by Tory politicians and commentators, Labour politicians and supporters and a number of celebrities of various political hues. 

John MacDonnell, a veteran Labour M.P., quoted in the Daily Express said: "This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this."

SNP MP John Nicolson said: "This is absolutely nauseating. Politics cheapened and debased. The Labour Party wants to win, of course, but like this?"

Actor and director Samuel West wrote: “Please withdraw this. It’s lower than low and I’m embarrassed to be a member when this is the way you campaign.”

With breathtaking hypocrisy, Tory MP Robert Largan said: "I'm not going to quote tweet it. But that Labour Party post about the Prime Minister is in the gutter. Really shameful stuff."

With rather less reservations than Largan, and no hesitation about launching personal attacks, an anonymous Tory source said: "Labour HQ (??) have highlighted Sir Keir's appalling record at keeping children safe. During Sir Keir's controversial tenure as director of public prosecutions, less than 30 percent of child pornographers saw the inside of a prison cell".

The source went on to say: "criminals want a Labour government." No evidence of this remarkable claim was provided by the anonymous Tory spokesperson. We can only wonder if the source is close to our late and unlamented prime minister, Boris Johnson, who launched a highly personalised attack on Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons in 2022. Johnson claimed that Starmer, when Director of Public Prosecutions in the previous Labour government, "spent most of his time [as DPP] prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile". This was widely condemned as the slur that Starmer said it was, and was decisively refuted by many commentators, including the BBC Reality Check.

Returning to the Labour tweet, and more factually based, Rob Powell, on Sky News, pointed out that:

"Rishi Sunak was elected as an MP in 2015 and only became prime minister six months ago, so pinning this all on him is a stretch."

Conservative commentator Iain Dale echoed all other right-wing commentators by saying Labour's attack on Sunak was 'a new low in British political attack ads'.

For myself, I have to admit that I did not like the personalisation of the Tweet, if only because it places all the blame for the figures on one man. A group photo of the government or a general statement ("It's all the fault of the Tories") would have been more accurate, and less open to criticism. The Labour Party - which I support - have made a tactical error in trying to emulate Tory methods by appealing to populist anger.

However, I have heard some interesting statements from people who support the tweet, One caller to LBC said that he was happy to see the Tories get a taste of their own medicine. As he went on to say, Tory politicians, and their allies in the right-wing tabloids, unfairly target whole groups of people. The list grows by the week. Asylum seekers, refugees, trade unionists, teachers, Remain voters, Remain politicians, human rights lawyers, civil servants - and these are just a few that we can expect to see vilified in the Daily Mail and the other right-wing tabloids. The caller to LBC might have included individuals too: Harry and Meghan, Gary Lineker, Sir Keir Starmer, Stephen Fry, all of whom have faced tabloid hostility. And who can forget the relentless tabloid campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, which lasted during the whole of his tenure as Labour leader? This reached its pinnacle in a Daily Mail article of 2019: "Fifty infamous moments that shame Jeremy Corbyn". There is even a test you can take to see if you are likely to be hated by the Daily Mail. The Labour tweet was a mistake, but Labour have a long way to sink before they are in the gutter with yer actual gutter press.

In conclusion, let's hope that the Labour Party does not resort to this tactic again. There is no need. This present Tory government is digging a pit for itself daily, and we should focus upon that. Personalised attacks miss the whole target and are, as we have seen, counter-productive.

A better Labour Party creation - strategically, tactically and factually correct.