Inspector Ofsted thumbed through his note book in an attempt to review the evidence he had collected. He had certainly written a lot, but the problem was he just didn’t know how valid and reliable it all was. “If only the methodology had not gone missing”, he thought, “the mystery would be solved”. But sadly, nobody knew where the methodology was or even where to begin looking for it ….
In a recent post, I recounted what
seemed to me to be a sorry tale. I have been asking Ofsted questions about
their inspection methodology, particularly how their social care inspectors
avoid selecting samples of work which are unrepresentative of the work done by
the local authority they are inspecting. What precautions, if you like, do they take to avoid selecting just
examples of poor work or just examples good work, when they choose cases to
‘sample’ or ‘track’?
Published sources cast no light on this
issue. Reference is made to inspectors making “proportionate decisions ... in
order to secure a representative judgement” but how they take these decisions
and what ‘proportionate’ means remains mysterious.
After much wasted effort trying to explain
my Freedom of Information Act request I seem to have hit Ofsted’s buffer stops.
The well has run dry. It appears that nobody there knows the answer to my
question. Put another way there seems to be a massive black hole in the
inspectorate’s methodology.
Does that matter? You bet it matters! If,
as seems to be the case, Ofsted inspectors just roll up to inspect child
protection and children’s social care with no prior thinking about how they are
going to get a sample of work which truly represents the standards of work
achieved by the authority, then the inspection is a lottery. One authority
might just be unlucky and have lots of poor cases selected resulting in a
verdict of ‘inadequate’, while its neighbour may be lucky in only having good
cases selected for inspection.
And we all know the consequences. An
authority that fails an inspection usually has to reorganise, fire staff and
hire new ones. It is likely to lose committed staff as morale slumps. Those who
remain are likely to be disorientated by the frantic pace of change. Their work
will suffer. Service users are also likely to suffer, as all attention is
diverted towards managing the results of the inspection, not the service they
receive. Some of that might be justified if the eventual result was guaranteed
to be accurate, and the ultimate consequences constructive. But all I have
learnt recently suggests the opposite.
Because this post is a just a tiny bit
critical of Ofsted, I thought it was only fair to send it to their Press Office
and invite a comment before posting. This is what they said:
“Inspectors select samples that reflect the full range of the local authority’s work with children. Throughout the inspection, they ask social workers, their managers and leaders to identify good practice and practice they think they can improve, so that inspectors can evaluate the quality and extent of this work.
“Inspectors meet regularly with local leaders to discuss their findings and give them an opportunity to challenge any findings they feel are not representative.
"We are confident that our methodology and the parameters in our inspection guidance are sufficient to ensure a fair and accurate judgement.”
Nicely put, I’m sure. It’s good to know
that they give people the opportunity to challenge their findings. But that’s
just politeness and common sense. What I wanted to know is how Ofsted ensures
that the cases selected are representative and that the findings of the inspection
are valid. I don’t think they’ve told me that!
Back to square one perhaps?
Back to square one perhaps?
