2 average rating | Ofsted faces allegations of ‘cut and paste’ inspection reports
Ofsted is facing allegations of approving “cut and paste” inspection reports that use identical sentences and phrases to justify placing schools in special measures.
The claims were made after two reports were published that contained a large number of similarities in the way the schools’ “inadequate” standards were described. The inspectorate has launched an investigation into the judgements for Belvedere Junior School in Bexley, South London, and Malmesbury Primary School in Tower Hamlets, East London, amid allegations that they have been treated unfairly.
Belvedere was placed in special measures in March this year and Malmesbury a month later after they were visited by the same lead inspector. The reports repeat a number of sentences verbatim and contain other passages critical of the schools that differ by only one or two words.
For example, both reports state: “Some teachers do not plan learning for pupils at their different levels of ability and marking is not leading to improvement.” The reports also both say that “the majority of parents and carers are positive about how well the school develops their children’s skills in reading, writing and mathematics”, while stating that inspectors disagree.
The lead inspector of the reports was employed by services company Tribal, one of three organisations to which Ofsted subcontracts inspections. Both Ofsted and Tribal said they stand by the judgements, but a spokesman for Tribal added: “Similarities noted in some of the wording caused concern and are being rigorously investigated. If proven, Tribal would take swift action to stop using the inspector.”
This is not the first time that concerns over similarities between Ofsted reports have been raised. In October 2010, two primary schools in Lincolnshire - Sturton by Stow and Dunholme St Chad’s - received identical reports, differing only in the overall judgements of the schools. The inspector, who worked for one of the private inspection contractors, was dismissed after an investigation.
While each of the recent reports contains specific comments on the school’s strengths and weaknesses, the NAHT heads’ union said that they were symptomatic of an overly corporate and inflexible inspection regime that presents an inaccurate picture of schools.
Russell Hobby, general secretary of the union, said he had heard anecdotal accounts of similar “cut and paste” reports, and added that such approaches were “not acceptable given that the fate of the school rests on what is written”.
“There are a limited number of words in the English language, but we are concerned that reports are seemingly written before the inspectors make their visits. It’s a great discourtesy to the school,” Mr Hobby added.
Lesley Gannon, head of research at the NAHT, said the problem lies in part with the formulaic evaluation schedule that Ofsted inspectors must obey.
“Problems are compounded at the second stage of the inspection process when the reports are rewritten by a moderator - someone who has never been to the school - who checks the descriptions to ensure they fit the grades described in the inspection schedule,” she said. “That is the pattern we are seeing and it’s very worrying.
“Inspectors just cut and paste, regurgitating wording from the evaluation schedule. Therefore the reports are often more similar than they are individual. We want the best inspectors to be able to freestyle a little bit more.”
Nicola Bulpitt, Belvedere’s headteacher, confirmed that the school was in discussion with Ofsted over the reports, but said she could not comment further “at present”.
The headteacher and governors of Malmesbury did not want to comment on the reports, but parents are angry that the school has been placed in special measures. A newsletter circulated by parents in April described a meeting of parents, teachers and the council at which they were told that Malmesbury had not been on the council’s radar as a school it was worried about. “The true strengths of the school were clearly not recognised in the Ofsted report,” the newsletter says.
In a statement, Ofsted said it stands by the judgements for the two schools, which were subject to moderation by a directly employed inspector. But it added: “We are concerned by the similarity of some of the wording used in the two reports and this is being looked into with the inspector concerned.”
Original headline: Ofsted under fire for ‘cut and paste’ reports that fail schools
Comment (8)
WHAT? OFSTED outsources inspections? The more I hear the name "Tribal" pop up when there's cash to be had from FE the more concerned I get.
When did THIS happen? How many "Ofsted people" are actually subcontracted out?
I might be stupid or ignorant but I've looked and I've never seen the headline
"Ofsted Subcontracts Inspections"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rating:
10:55
8 June, 2012
facepalm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101004/text/101004w0001.htm#1010044001888
Oh, this is Olds not News ... am I the only one just learning about this now?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rating:
10:58
8 June, 2012
facepalm
There are three organisations which act as Regional Inspection Service Providers (RISPs)—CfBT Education Trust, Serco, and the Tribal Group. The RISPs undertake inspections on behalf of Ofsted, with responsibility for different regions of the country. They employ a workforce of Additional Inspectors who are trained by Her Majesty's Inspectors but who, in many cases, can lead inspections in their own right. There are around 400 HMI and 2,700 Additional Inspectors.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeduc/570/57006.htm
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
12:49
8 June, 2012
Retired123
But if the issues were the same issues, who can blame the lead inspector for using the same words?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
15:13
8 June, 2012
jecviner
The plural of anecdote is not data
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rating:
15:34
8 June, 2012
Crispness
It is possible that jecviner has a point. However, the article suggests there is a real problem.
Once again it seems that the sheer hypocricy that is Ofsted manifests itself. They preach excellent standards but operate and accept mediocrity in their own organisation.
One wonders how they keep 'getting away with it'. The answer is simple they are not accountable to anyone. The official line is that Ofsted are answerable to Parliament - that great nebulous mass.
With no one to answer to in reality they just do what they like - a charter for bullies and incompetentents.
So how do you make them accountable? The route is to treat them as the bullies that they are. They pick off the complainers one by one and intimidate the would be complainers by implied threats of 'retrbution'
It is time to be brave. Every school that is dissatisfied with an aspect of Ofsted's inspection performance should complain and send a copy to their MP. Perhaps then Parliament might get a picture of the real level of dissatisfaction with Ofsted and do something about it.
The new HMCI has made a lot of critical remarks about schools, teachers etc. but at no time has he mentioned anything about improving Ofsted's internal performance. Perhaps this 'tough guy' is not tough enough to confront Ofsted's internal bullies with their entrenched attitudes and complacency of unaccountabilty. Or may be he thinks 'do as I say and not as I do' is real leadership.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
18:32
8 June, 2012
WillJ21
Of course Ofsted use exactly the same reports for different schools. They just change the name of the school at the top of the page and rehash the same old comments they used the last time. I thought everyone knew this. How could anyone be so foolish or so naive as to imagine that Ofsted actually write individual, unique reports for each school?
And before we all rush to condemn Ofsted, let's just pause for a minute and remember that most teachers do exactly the same thing when they write their end-of-term or end-of-year reports for the children they teach. As I drove to work only this morning, a teaching colleague confided in me that 70% or even 80% of what he had written for his class's set of reports was the same for each child. So should we criticise Ofsted? I think that it is a case of people living in glass houses not throwing stones.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
7:13
10 June, 2012
the hippo
There is, potentially, a more serious issue underlying the 'cut and paste' approach to writing inspection reports.
These stock phrases are often ambiguous and can be taken to infer one thing by the schools and but mean something else to Ofsted.
Inspectors have no burden of proof. They can say what they like without supporting evidence - other than their Evidence Forms (the forms they fill in during the inspection).
I would suggest that the schools concerned use the Freedom of Information Act to ask Ofsted for copies of all the evidence base that the inspectors submitted to justify their judgements. They may find that what the inspectors have said to Ofsted is different to what they said to the schools.
I know from personal experience of at least one instance where the report wording was consistent with what the school had been told (because it has to be) but the back up information was full of fabrications - none of which were ever raised with school during the inspection or during the moderation stage. It was only when the school appealed against the 'inadequate' judgement that all the fabricated charges came to light. So when Ofsted said they stood by the judgement it was on a false basis. Perhaps these schools are in the same situation.
What these schools and others need to remember is that when dealing with Ofsted they are not necessarily dealing with an organisation that puts much emphasis on integrity if it means that the have to admit being wrong.
(For the record. When evidence was sent to Ofsted to prove the charges were fabricated Ofsted refused to respond to it. Instead they hid behind their complaints procedures implicitly claiming that they were not obliged to respond to the evidence. Incredible but true)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
13:26
11 June, 2012
WillJ21