Gillian Keegan and OFSTED Abolition

 She's at it again. Last September, I was commenting about the fact that the current Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan had used a four-letter word during a TV interview. Understandably, there was widespread criticism of Mrs Keegan, and she was forced to apologise. In my post, I raised the glaringly obvious point that had a teacher or teaching assistant sworn in front of children or staff, they would have faced severe disciplinary measures, possibly even dismissal. Neville Grundy confirmed that any civil servant swearing in front of the public or colleagues would face comparable measures. An anonymous Tube driver here in London was disciplined for shouting a pro-Palestinian slogan over the train intercom. Since last September - and I am forced to be discreet - I have learned of a teaching assistant here in West London who was dismissed for, among other things, using a swear word in front of children. Mrs Keegan, as we know, was not dismissed, and remains in her post.

Again, as we know, Mrs Keegan has been speaking out of turn - this time about an OFSTED inspection. As Schools Week reports: 

"Gillian Keegan said she would have “probably punched” disrespectful Ofsted inspectors, during a question-and-answer session at the ASCL school leaders’ union conference in Liverpool last month."

I found myself gloating vindictively to learn that Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, which represents inspectors, wrote to Mrs Keegan on March 11, demanding that she retract the “inflammatory language”, which he called “unacceptable in any context, let alone coming from the secretary of state”. Like any serving or retired teacher, I was hugely amused that OFSTED inspectors had found themselves on the receiving end of an unfair verdict. As a veteran of both OFSTED and HMI inspections, gained from years of being in a school placed in Special Measures, I found it amusing that they felt aggrieved at Mrs Keegan's remarks - I know so many in my old profession, including me, who feel an abiding sense of grievance at comments passed upon them and their schools by OFSTED inspectors. Mr Penman and his members deserve a taste of their own medicine.

Mrs Keegan has not apologised for her remark. Instead, as Schools Week puts it: 

" Keegan said: “As I think you know, the comments you refer to were off-the-cuff remarks, made in a light-hearted manner in a very particular context, and in the spirit of expressing support for headteachers and teachers in the audience. Clearly, I would not be punching anyone, or advocating anyone else do so, and to imply otherwise would be completely wrong.”

What was not said by anyone was the fact that, had any headteacher or teacher publicly made this statement, Mrs Keegan, her department and the right-wing press would have been incandescent with (self) righteous anger. The hypothetical culprit would be named and shamed publicly on social media, and Mrs Keegan would undoubtedly be joining in the clamour for him or her to be disciplined (the Daily Mail would probably call for dismissal). In contrast, Mrs Keegan remains serenely in place. To quote Nev Grundy's comments from my September post:

"Yet another incident to add to the huge catalogue of examples of one rule for us and none for them".

While on the subject of OFSTED, and since Mrs Keegan - at least temporarily and light-heartedly - identified with the feelings of school staff about OFSTED inspections, we should note that the National Education Union (NEU) are calling for the abolition of OFSTED. The NEU survey of members found, according to Teeside Live:  

"Just 3% of teachers believe Ofsted is trusted to uphold standards in schools and only 4% think it acts independently of Government. The poll of more than 4,500 NEU teacher members in state schools in England, found 62% said inspections impacted their mental health and 59% said it affected their home life".

And, as we know, OFSTED stress led to the suicide of Ruth Perry, pictured above. Interestingly, the last Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, has hinted that she does not think that the OFSTED team who inspected Ruth Perry's school - Caversham School, in Reading - did anything untoward. In a separate Schools Week article, Ms Spielman is quoted as saying:

 “It’s like a doctor, sometimes the doctor has to give you a difficult diagnosis. And you cannot not be upset by it, however kindly and sympathetically they give it to you. It’s the same for Ofsted inspectors. There are times when they have to give people really tough messages.”

Spielman does not mention that OFSTED's "tough messages" have cost at least four other lives besides that of Ruth Perry. Last March, I wrote about three of them.  Having said this, Ruth Perry's sister, Professor Julia Waters, does not want OFSTED to be abolished. Professor Waters expressed her hopes that the new Head Inspector, Sir Martin Oliver would be more sympathetic to schools inspected by bringing in what he calls "The Big Listen". However, as the Professor says: 

 “How many more teachers will suffer from an inherently flawed, badly-run inspection process in the meantime? How many more children will lose another dedicated headteacher to a forced resignation, a nervous breakdown or worse?

That is a very good question. Another might be: what redress is there for past victims of OFSTED-related stress? For the five cases of suicide that I know of, namely: Janet Watson (1999), Keith Waller (2007), Jed Holmes (2007), Carol Woodward (2015) and, of course, Ruth Perry (2023), the putative changes in OFSTED to make inspections a less harrowing experience are coming far, far too late.