Get the best experience in our app
Enjoy offline reading, category favourites, and instant updates - right from your pocket.

Ofsted too middle-class, say Harris and Outwood Grange

The leaders of two major academy chains claim Ofsted’s new framework will leave poorer children further behind
10th January 2020, 6:27pm

Share

Ofsted too middle-class, say Harris and Outwood Grange

/magazine/archive/ofsted-too-middle-class-say-harris-and-outwood-grange
Ofsted Inspection Concerns: Sir Daniel Moynihan, Of Harris Federation

The chief executives of two major high-performing academy chains have criticised Ofsted’s new curriculum-focused inspections as “a middle-class framework for middle-class kids”.

The leaders of bothHarris Federation and Outwood Grange Academies Trust have raised concernsthat schools are being marked down for running GCSEs over three years rather than two.

They also warned that Ofstedplacing more weight on curriculum than exam results would not work for disadvantaged pupils.


Exclusive: ’Ofsted framework drawn up on a middle-class dinner table’

Ofsted: ’We don’t have apreferred length to key stage 3’

Deprived areas: Schools in poor areas are not faring better under new inspections


Sir Daniel Moynihan, chief executive of the Harris Federationsaid: “It is a middle-class [inspection] framework for middle-class kids.”

Ofsted inspections under fire

The commentsfollowa Tes exclusive this week in which another multi-academy trust leader said that Ofsted hadused a school’s focus on academic success as a stick to beat it with during an inspection under the new framework.

Michael Gosling, of Trinity Academy Trust, said staff at one of his trust’s primaryschools, in a deprived area of Halifax, felt that Ofsted’s inspection framework had been “drawn up on a middle-class dinner table.”

Now leaders of both Harris and Outwood Grange, which both have a track record for turning around underperforming schools, are reported tohave spokenout.

Ofsted’s new inspectionframework, which was introduced in September,gives more weight to the school curriculum and less weight to exam results when assessing a school’s quality of education.

, Sir Danielis quoted as saying that a wider curriculum for an extra year was fine for “SW1”, one of London’s richest areas, but not for disadvantaged children.

“For many of our children qualifications are all they have in their hands at a job interview or college application and beyond,” he said. “They have no networks, no contacts, no professional people in their family to help them on in life. Their GCSEs are crucial. Ofsted is valuing curriculum over qualifications.

MartynOliver, Outwood’s chief executive, told The Times that Ofsted’s intentions in developing the new framework were good but the unintended consequence would be disadvantaged children falling further behind.

He said: “Ofsted was trying to solve the problem of exam factories and schools teaching to the test.

“However, inspectors on the ground are taking a far too simplistic a view on when GCSE teaching should begin. Many of the children in our schools need a three-year run-up.”

Their comments follow a and would not automatically mark schools down who shortened it.

However, he also warned against schools simply stretching GCSE teaching over three years.

Responding to the comments made by Harris and Outwood Grange , Mr Harford said: “A narrowed curriculum has a disproportionately negative effect on the most disadvantaged pupils, who often start school behind their peers and without the benefit of cultural experiences that other children take for granted.

“We have, therefore, been very clear that we expect to see a broad and ambitious curriculum in all the schools we inspect, and our inspectors will be particularly alert to any signs of curriculum narrowing.

“We do not have a fixed view on the length of any key stages, and schools will not be automatically marked down for a three-year GCSE programme. Our judgement will be based on whether schools offer pupils an ambitious curriculum across their whole time in secondary education.

“Since September, we’ve seen a number of schools judged ‘good’ or better while offering a two-year key stage 3. However, where schools are simply stretching two-year GCSE courses over three years, we will be very concerned if it means that some pupils never get the chance to study subjects like art, music or languages again.”

Tes reported on Wednesday that Trinity MATis appealing against a “requires improvement” judgement for Akroydon Primary, in Halifax. The trust claims thatOfsted gave more weight to pupils’ ability to recall history lessons thanit did to the school’s key stage 2 Sats results.

Want to keep reading for free?

Register with Tes and you can read five free articles every month, plus you'll have access to our range of award-winning newsletters.

Register with Tes and you can read five free articles every month, plus you'll have access to our range of award-winning newsletters.

Keep reading for just £4.90 per month

/per month for 12 months

You've reached your limit of free articles this month. Subscribe for £4.90 per month for three months and get:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters

You've reached your limit of free articles this month. Subscribe for £4.90 per month for three months and get:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters
Recent
Most read
Most shared