THE tragic death of a primary school headteacher in England has again raised questions about school inspections. In particular, their purpose and the ways in which they are conducted and reported.
It’s thought the headteacher took her own life following a critical report by inspectors of The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). Her family believe she did so as a “direct result of Ofsted’s inspection report”. They condemned its conclusions as “sensationalist” and based on “scant evidence”.
I have no insight regarding that tragedy, but it seems odd that, on the first day of an inspection, the head was reportedly told the school was to be downgraded from “outstanding” to “inadequate”. The downgrading was largely due to the consequence of an inadequate rating for leadership and management. All other aspects were rated as good. To an outsider, it seems as if the head, for whom this was a first inspection, was hung out to dry. It appears the entire school was downgraded due to the head’s perceived failings as a leader and manager.
One wonders if the Ofsted inspectors didn’t have a duty of care regarding the head. When it comes to inspection reports, there’s no hiding place for headteachers. Reports rarely, if ever, identify individual teachers. Their strengths and weaknesses are usually conflated and generalised as “the staff.” There’s only one head teacher however, and there’s no doubt whose performance is being scrutinised and described. This can be particularly hard on heads of small schools who might work and live in the same community. It’s not only their professionalism being questioned. Their self-concept and social standing in the community can also be undermined by a critical report.
