Evidence-based facts? A minor inconvenience

IS Ofsted meaningfully accountable to anyone other than this Government?

The question occurs after Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector, gave a lengthy talk in the academic setting of Oxford University’s department of education on the inspectorate’s use of research.

Contacts who had followed Ofsted’s controversial “research reviews” in national curriculum subjects, which I wrote about in my last column, tipped me off in advance about this talk. There was a sense of incredulity that the watchdog, which had faced widespread criticism within education about the reviews, could be lecturing anyone on this subject.

As I wrote last time, Ofsted’s research review on maths had based a statement about pupils enjoying tests on a study involving only five pupils. That document had founded a statement on homework motivating children on a study which had not investigated the issue. A well-known maths academic had accused Ofsted of “complete fabrication” in relation to his own research. In English, another leading figure in her field had said it was “hard to see” how Ofsted’s document “bears any resemblance” to an editorial of hers which it had referenced.

Yet none of this was acknowledged in Ms Spielman’s talk – even though she highlighted the fact that the research reviews had been downloaded “many hundreds of thousands times” by schools. If there really were problems with Ofsted’s evidence base, should she not at least acknowledge the critique, given the experience and knowledge of some of those making it, and the influence of these reviews?

Ms Spielman only acknowledged that “educational research is contestable and contested”, without conceding that few would disagree, for example, that a study involving five participants should not be a solid basis for generalisation.

Ofsted’s use of research in several of these documents is widely seen by critics as in support of traditionalist approaches to education which align with those of this Government.

The talk came a couple of months after Ms Spielman had appeared before the Commons Education Committee as part of its own accountability hearings. She was asked about a comment by NEU joint general secretary Kevin Courtney that there needed to be a “root and branch review of the way that schools are inspected”.

In response, Ms Spielman seemed dismissive. “The NEU has been campaigning for our abolition for many years,” she said, without getting into any detail about its members’ concerns. Formally, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector is accountable to this committee, although their appointment is by the Secretary of State for Education.

Ms Spielman often comes across as thoughtful and reasonable. However, appearances such as this seem to underscore a sense that Ofsted is not meaningfully responsive to critique, in public at least. Is it only really answerable behind closed doors to ministers?

If so, perhaps it will require a general election to sweep in change, and for the inspectorate to acknowledge that the arguments of its critics might actually carry some weight.