“Nothing is ever good enough, it would appear,” says Ofsted inspector who criticises “frightening” new regime

Janet Downs's picture
Graham Lancaster, Ofsted inspector and Area Improvement Manager for the Essex Primary Heads Association, “hit out” at the new Ofsted regime, reports the TES. The inspector said, “The bar has been raised and it is really focused on pupil achievement as it never has been before. There has been more flexibility for inspectors in the past, I think, to take account of context, to take account of current data.” He expressed concern about the number of Essex schools that had gone from good to inadequate saying, “I don’t believe that schools have got worse since January.”

Mr Lancaster commented that “lack of trust [in teachers]” and “the continuing raising of the bar” triggered damaging headlines and was contributing to plummeting morale of teachers. “Nothing is ever good enough, it would appear.”

Since the new Ofsted framework began the percentage of schools judged inadequate has risen from 6% of schools inspected in 2011 to 13% in the first five months of 2012. Some of these judgements are disputed: Caistor Yarborough Academy, Lincolnshire has formally complained to Ofsted about its inspection and Sinfin Community School, Derby, is considering the same step. Downhills School, Haringey, was judged to be failing only months after a previous Ofsted inspection reported that the school was improving thanks to support from the local authority and a “core of experienced senior staff with high levels of expertise”. Now, thanks to the rushed second inspection, the head of this team of experienced staff has resigned, his career and health ruined. Both the Downhills inspections had the same lead inspector, Kekshan Salaria. Quite how she was able to overturn her previous judgement so quickly is unclear but such rapid reversals bring Ofsted into disrepute.

It is ever more difficult to regard Ofsted as an impartial inspectorate dedicated to supporting school improvement. It is increasingly being viewed as an arm of the Department for Education especially now that Michael Gove’s favourite, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has become Chief Inspector of Schools. Sir Michael is on record as saying that a sign of low staff morale is a sign that he is doing his job well.

The NAHT voiced concerns about Ofsted at its recent conference. So did other teacher unions. But it seems that it’s not only teachers who distrust Ofsted – Graham Lancaster can’t be the only inspector with misgivings. Perhaps it’s time for teachers and concerned inspectors to call time on Ofsted.

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 17:49

"Make your service attractive and effective to the general public, insist on more ability for parents and children to choose, OFSTED can then become less powerful and important."

Are you suggesting that opening free schools will make Ofsted less inappropriately powerful Ben?

Why are the two issues connected for you?

For me the way to make Ofsted less inappropriately powerful is pass an order obliging it to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (2006). Why do we need to open Free Schools to make that happen? You appear to be making a weird and irrelevant link.

Did all the other areas of society have to open Free Schools to get their regulators obliged to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act? Of course they didn't. Their regulators just said - this is good legislation - we accept it.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:29

"I think OFSTED should be more like other professional bodies and less like BA. It should indeed be more accountable to teachers who in turn need to be more accountable to parents and children."
Good. Let's make Ofsted more like all our other inspectorate and regulatory bodies who are accountable to all their stakeholders because they are obliged to Hampton.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:40

The Border Agency therefore assesses illegal activity. Ofsted don't. It is not the same thing.

andy's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 11:21

Ben, following Alison's comment I reminded of the clarion call of another regular contributor that posters should "take the ball not the man". I note with saddness then that this regular contributor appears to reserve that criticism - not matter how valid it may be - for male posters alone (e.g. Tim, Ricky, myself). It is so regrettable that in the hurly burly of debate gender discrimination seems to prevail. I also norte with even greater saddness that Alison has not had the decency to either retract her personal attack or correct her own grammar.

Ben Taylor's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:05

I think the first level of accountability is between the school/teacher and the parent and child. When this grows stronger you won't need such an interfering body as OFSTED. The historical structure of our schools has meant this 'first level' is much less relevant and available than it should be. Gove is right to make this relationship come first.

I am not sure whether or not the statute you quote will assist in your aim. It is a sideshow as far as I am concerned compared to parent/child choice and a profession which seeks to self regulate. I suggest you ask for a council body for OFSTED which is at least partly constituted of elected teachers and insist on more freedom of choice for parents and children.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:23

"I think the first level of accountability is between the school/teacher and the parent and child. When this grows stronger you won’t need such an interfering body as OFSTED."

How are you failing to see the extent to which this essential level of accountability is compromised by inappropriate behaviour by Ofsted Ben?

If Ofsted were obliged to Hampton (by putting them under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (2006) there would be a much healthier balance between schools' relationships with parents' wishes and their relationships with central government demands.

Ben Taylor's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:47

I would accept that if we had totally free choice of schools for children and parents. That is a Hampton principle for businesses and their ability to make economic progress. The profit from such progress is not mainly going to be monetised through payments of dividends from schools to shareholders, but instead through more effective use of money in schools and an increase in national wealth creation by more educated children.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:50

"I would accept that if we had totally free choice of schools for children and parents. That is a Hampton principle for businesses and their ability to make economic progress. The profit from such progress is not mainly going to be monetised through payments of dividends from schools to shareholders, but instead through more effective use of money in schools and an increase in national wealth creation by more educated children."

Govian cuckoo land or too much Saturday night vino Ben?

Ben Taylor's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 18:59

Why would you want to accept a principle of business regulation and then not be a business? Or are you now arguing against the operation of these Hampton principles in school regulation?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 19:04

Ben, the Hampton principles were created to embody our understanding of the most efficient and effective practice of regulators carrying out their duties to protect against damaging practice, drive improvement and report to government regarding what's going on in the organisation they regulate while allowing organisations proper professional freedom.

Ofsted themselves said they shouldn't be treating public and private schools differently to state schools but nonetheless they are. Why should that be?

Allan Beavis's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 21:34


Ofsted is an Inspectorate. Border Control did not come to the establishment where you taught English to foreign students to assess educational standards but to ensure the place wasn't encouraging or facilitating illegal entries. Bewildering you can't see the difference.

Ben Taylor's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 21:56

Yes they are different, but they are both effectively regulators looking for compliance with certain statute law. They both had some ability to pull the plug on the business. You are right that they have mainly different responsibilities, but sometime they overlapped. They would both want to see attendance records. They would want to see scheduled classes taking place under normal conditions.

Incidently the responsibility for teaching quality was removed from the British Council and given to ISI instead, by the BA, so you see how it works. Those in the know who I can respect say ISI are not actually as good a regulator as the British Council. I can't say.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 22:18

Shame on you for labelling state schools a "business". Border control does not close down businesses they underperform. It restricts illegal immigration which is why it visited the establishments you taught in. Ofsted visits schools and is not charged with deporting people who have entered the country fraudulently. As usual you are tying yourself in knots

andy's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 12:49

Ben, I fear that you may be emulating one King Canute on the difference/similarities between UKBA and Ofsted. I say this because the former is unequivocally a major arm of the UKs Law Enforcement Agencies;

"The agency protects the UK border, and is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the UK."


Ben Taylor's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 22:32

Rebecca wants to adopt some principles for business regulation to our state school inspectorate on a pick n mix basis, in which case so can I.

I don't really understand your distinctions. If a private English language school which sponsors visa students does not comply sufficiently with either of the requirements of the UKBA or ISI, then they both have some ability to cause them to stop operating. That is all that really matters. I am not saying that the UKBA are the same as OFSTED or that they should be.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 00:16

"Rebecca wants to adopt some principles for business regulation to our state school inspectorate on a pick n mix basis, in which case so can I."

Rebecca want Ofsted to apply the same standards for inspection and regulation to state schools as it applies to public and private schools and which all other inspectors and regulators apply to ensure best quality practice in their duties to protect against unacceptable practice, drive quality improvement and report to government regarding what's going on in the organisations they regulate.

You can do what you like but divvin take my name down with you.

We've already had the discussion about the distinction between the state sector and the private sector once in this conversation. Perhaps you could be bothered to read it?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 09:15


You can do what you like but divvin take my name down with you.


Ben Taylor's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 14:24

The point is that for private English language schools the UKBA are effectively a regulator of them, in addition to their other duties such as controlling entry to the UK of students. There is also another regulator ISI, who are similar to OFSTED in their capacity.


andy's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 17:34

Yes, clearly the UKBA sets out the standards expected for Private Language Schools on behalf of the Home Office in relation to their licence to operate and recruit students. In that regard they may appear to be a hybrid educational inspector. However, you are right to mention ISI (the Independent Schools Inspectorate) who operate under the umbrella of the Independent Schools Council who in their turn are authorised to inspect Private/Independent sector fee-paying schools on behalf of Ofsted.

There are however some fundandamental differences. The UKBA do not inspect the quality of the teaching and Learning or student progress etc - that is don't by the ISI teams. The UKBA role is to ensure that the licencing regulations are being met; including the rigour of immigration issues. This places them firmly in the realm of law enforcement as opposed to ISI and Ofsted who inspect/regulate the performance of schools. It is worth noting that schools in the normal run of things means 0-19, whereas in my understanding the Private Language Schools are principally operating in the post school adult learning arena - their raison detre is teaching English as a Second Language.

These factors highlight clear differences between schools and adult English language learning centres.

andy's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 17:58

Ricky, why aye lad but from my time in Ashington I think the intended word was 'dinnie'.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 23:40

No Ricky. Longbenton is a suburb of Kensington.
I once spent the night on a ping pong table in Ashington.

andy's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 07:51

Allan, if my understanding of the modus operandi of the UKBA is correct then they can indeed close down private language schools. They have the legal power to revoke a licence to operate and to recruit students, thus they close down what is effectively a private business set up and licenced to teach foreign adults English.

andy's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 08:54

Allan, it is worth considering that Ben's connection between schools and businesses is not actually that outlandish, afterall like businesses they have income and expenditure, they employ people and can generate a surplus, break even or make a loss. However, at that point one needs to make a distinction between state schools and non-state schools in that the former are like the high street banks - too important to fail and go out of business. As necessary they get rebadged and relaunched (e.g. academised). Whereas for the latter they are more like the traditional business model. If non-state schools fail financially they, just like a high street business, go under. They are either bought out and/or merged or shut and their customers (pupils) move to other non-state schools or find places at state schools.

It is then not unreasonable to say that schools are businesses that operate in the education marketplace.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 09:06

Nice try Andy but no.

Because the distinction is really between the schools which provide for the children of parents who can and will freely move their children and the schools which provide for the most disadvantaged children.

That's why free market theories work in emerging markets in eduction where there is no duty to provide complete coverage or to educate the most vulnerable but fail in systems where the government has a duty to provide for everyone.

It's the schools which provide for the most vulnerable that have to be sorted out. It's nothing to do with whether they are free schools, academies or state schools. Whatever way the state still picks up the bill.

andy's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 09:16

"Nice try Andy but no."

Relates to what exactly?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 09:27

read the line above the comment.

andy's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 09:46

"read the line above the comment."

A stunningly unhelpful clarification.

Ben Taylor's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 20:14

I don't know that is a new point.

So I guess you do accept this Hampton principle which Gove has managed to implement even without applying the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (2006) to OFSTED:

"Regulators should recognize that a key element of their activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection"

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 09/06/2012 - 21:11

“Regulators should recognize that a key element of their activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection”

And they do this by carrying out their duties in ways which seek to minimise their interference with organisations' professional freedoms, for example by allowing rather than stifling healthy diversity and innovation.

andy's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 11:13

I think the issue of the Hampton review - unveiled in 2004 and full report publsihed in March 2005 - and the principles that flowed from it needs a fresh airing:

“02 December 2004

Hampton Review of regulatory inspection and enforcement Interim Report
In Budget 2004 the Chancellor asked Philip Hampton to lead a review into regulatory inspection and enforcement with a view to reducing the administrative cost of regulation to the minimum consistent with maintaining the UK’s excellent regulatory outcomes.

This interim report, Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement, outlines the issues relevant to the administrative cost of regulation, and suggests possible solutions. A list of questions for consultation form part of the interim report. The consultation period is open until 4 February 2005. A final report with recommendations to Government will be published in spring 2005”


The full report gained international recognition acknowledged by the OECD (I will return to this later) and gave rise to legislation in 2007 in the form of the ‘Statutory Code of Practice for Regulators, 17 December 2007’:

Part One: General Introduction section 1.2:

“This Code supports the Government’s better regulation agenda and is based on the recommendations in the Hampton Report1. Its purpose is to promote efficient and effective approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement which improve regulatory outcomes2 without imposing unnecessary burdens on business, the Third Sector3 and other regulated entities.4

1 Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement, Philip Hampton, March 2005.
2 Throughout this Code, the term ‘regulatory outcomes’ means the ‘end purpose’ of regulatory activity (for example, reduction in accidents/disease, less pollution).
3 This is defined as non-governmental organisations that include voluntary and community organisations, charities, social enterprises, cooperatives and mutuals.
4 Throughout this Code, the term ‘regulated entities’ includes businesses, public sector bodies, charities and voluntary sector organisations that are subject to regulation.
5 The term ‘regulator’ is used in this code to refer to any organisation that exercises a regulatory function.”

Part Two: Specific obligations of the Code

[Rather regurgitate verbatim I have limited the quote to the headings for each obligation. The link will enable readers to verify the full extent of the scope for themselves]

Economic Progress
Risk Assessment
Advice and Guidance
Inspections and other Visits
Information requirements
Compliance and enforcement actions


The foregoing provides an auditable trail from conception to implementation between 2004 and 2007. The efficacy and recognition of these actions was evidence in the OECD 2010 report focusing on Compliance and enforcement actions:

“The practical roll-out of the Hampton recommendations is a fundamental and comprehensive effort to embed risk-based regulatory management at ground level.
This is an area where there have been significant developments since the 2002 OECD report. There appears to be steady progress in taking forward the Hampton recommendations, energetically spearheaded by the BRE (Better Regulation Executive). The changes proposed by Hampton were innovative and have been a source of inspiration to other countries (everybody has heard of Hampton). Change was also particularly necessary in the United Kingdom, given its complex and overlapping structures for enforcement.”

“An important Hampton recommendation was that the number of national regulatory agencies should be reduced. Specifically, Hampton recommended that 31 bodies should be merged into 7 thematic ones. This had already started to happen, with the consolidation of regulators that led to the establishment of OFCOM (communications) and the FSA (financial services), among others. The establishment of OFSTED (education inspections) has reduced the number of education inspectorates from 11 to 4. Funding cuts have helped the process along, and not least, encouraged the take up of the new approach to enforcement8. More mergers are in the pipeline.

8. For example OFSTED’s budget was cut from GBP 240 million to GBP 180 million.”

“The Regulators Compliance Code
[At this point I will interject my personal understanding of this appears to be reflected in Ofsted’s activities]

The Regulators Compliance Code is a statutory code of practice which came into force in April 20089. The aim of the code is to ensure that inspection and enforcement is efficient, both for the regulators and those they regulate. The code gives the seven Hampton principles relating to regulatory inspection and enforcement a statutory basis:

9. Under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.

• Regulators should recognise that a key element of their activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection.
[Economic progress may be understood in terms of value for money and return on investment in relation to taxpayer funding for state schools e.g. public examination results against floor targets. Thus if such schools are deemed not to be meeting government targets then the value for money legitimately trigger scrutiny from the regulator (Ofsted). It can also be argued that the reduction of the target areas covered by inspections contributes to this.]

• Regulators, and the regulatory system as a whole, should use comprehensive risk assessment to concentrate resources in the areas that need them most.
[See above: fall below prescribed performance expectations and trigger an inspection, meet or exceed the targets and benefit from a reduced frequency of type of inspection visit. The reduced scope of the inspection framework is relevant here also.]

• Regulators should provide authoritative, accessible advice easily and cheaply.
[The Ofsted and DFE websites both meet these criteria]

• No inspection should take place without reason.
[See earlier comments: only triggered by failing to meet prescribed and published performance measures]
• Businesses should not have to give unnecessary information or give the same piece of information twice.
[The scrapping of the formal DFE SEF requirement is an example of meeting this criterion. Withdrawing KS3 SATs is another example]

• The few businesses that persistently break regulations should be identified quickly and face proportionate and meaningful sanctions.
[Schools that either demonstrate inadequacy and/or consistently fail to meet prescribed and published performance expectation and/or breach Child Protection issues face the imposition of ‘notice to improve’ or ‘special measures’ – the former being enhanced by ‘requiring improvement’ from Sept 12]

• Regulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities, while remaining independent in the decisions they take.”
[The new streamlined and fewer foci for school inspection contribute to this. Ofsted is doubly accountable in that individual schools have the right of appeal and the organisation itself is answerable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Education. The Ofsted annual budget has also fallen by £60 million.]


Based on this dispassionate overview of formal codes of practice and external authoritative reports it would appear that despite personal interactions with Ofsted, and irrespective of whether it formally falls under the appropriate legislation or not, Ofsted is complying with the Hampton principles. This indicates that the problems arising within the operation of Ofsted are not regulatory as much as a flawed/skewed approach to the operation of the framework in which it is supposed to operate.

I doubt anyone would argue that a failing or underperforming school doesn’t need action to redress the situation. What is worrisome is that, and as highlighted by Janet elsewhere, schools that Ofsted adjudged ‘Good’ or ‘Satisfactory and improving’ within the last 12-24 months are now likely to be adjudged Satisfactory/Requiring improvement at best and all too often placed in special measures. Yes, there will be some that slipped backwards but by no means all of them. I would argue then that Ofsted have made a rod for their back and damaged even further their reputation for effectiveness and accuracy of judgements. However, for me this is an operation/tactical issue not a policy problem regarding regulatory codes of practice or Hampton’s principles.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 13:23


I think there is much in what you say there, but no doubt Rebecca will point out where you are wrong.

On your final para -

I wonder how much of the perception that Ofsted is getting tougher under Wilshaw actually stems from that Hampton-compliant policy of concentrating on poor performers and inspecting better performers less frequently.

Where Ofsted in the past might have inspected a representative sample of schools right across the gamut, they are now much more focused on the ones that aren't doing well. If you inspect only seemingly bad schools, you will inevitably fail more than if you inspect a broader selection.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 21:01

"no doubt Rebecca will point out where you are wrong"

""Ofsted is complying with the Hampton principles.""

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 21:14

"I wonder how much of the perception that Ofsted is getting tougher under Wilshaw actually stems from that Hampton-compliant policy of concentrating on poor performers and inspecting better performers less frequently."

Yes I wondered that but it seems not much.

It seems that schools are just being massively downgraded by very weak inspectors who giving the schools with below average results 44444 and fitting up the reports to match the grades.

I think the shift to targeted inspections had already happened so the effect you're talking about had already run through.

andy's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 08:27


Having had time to further reflect on the excellent point you made it seems likely to me that the pre Wilshire decisions to introduce reduced and light tariff Ofsted inspections may also be a reflection on the governments (Labour and subsequently Coalition) moves toward compliance with the Hampton principles. It is also possible that the reduction in inspection foci has increased the pressure on schools because the inspectors have far fewer areas to cover and can therefore better concentrate their efforts. That said, and if only on the basis of rarely is there smoke without there being a fire, the protestations of HTs, Unions and the TES re the quality of the Ofsted inspectors one must also be mindful that there could be other reasons at play here too. I understand that Wilshire has insisted on and introduced a formal professional training course that all inspectors (new and existing) have to pass before they are taken on. However, and as creditable as this may be it would also seem wise to ensure that inspectors are not allowed to be come too distant from the rigours of the classroom and attendant pressures (e.g. marking, meetings, parents evenings) and that the experiential range of inspectors be broadened to ensure better targetting of expertise.

PS The option of pre-checking all of Wilshires public and private pronouncements or just muzzling him might help Ofsted focus on their uneviable task and assist in repairing lines of communication :)

andy's picture
Sun, 10/06/2012 - 15:02


How can I put this, I am quietly confident that you are right but as others keep saying on LSN everyone is entitled to their opinion and I did try to produce appropriate evidence :)

You make an extremely valid and pertinent point about the new Ofsted approach. No, they have not done themselves any favours with what looks like undulating / pendulum like inspection outcomes but, yes, set against the Code of Practice for regulators Ofsted do seem to being driving on compliancy, which may go some way to explaining why the previous approaches now look so, well put bluntly, tame by comparison. All that said, it is early days and as ever time will tell.

The sad thing is that there will invariably be casualties ranging from childrens educational experience/continuity through school reputations to teaching staff (classroom to HTs and Governors) :(

It is also appropriate and relevant to flag up that Ofsted has a particularly difficult job to do and the outturns of their labours should be judged on the whole picture as opposed to cause celebs and/or regrettable individual encounters. No one likes the gamekeeper ...

Neither should it be forgotten that in every political falling out the truth always the first victim and thus we'll never know how much is directly at the door of party political agendas or the misdirection.misconceptions of SOS or ill prepared schools or Ofsted being overly politicised or the stubborn resistance/rejection of change by the teaching profession/unions. Hence we all chase shadows amonst the smoke and mirrors ...

Ben Taylor's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 21:32

Rebecca. I have tried to think why you want these Hampton principles. I can see that there are many good ones which OFSTED can adopt, and some they seem to be doing so now as posters have written. The sticking point would be 'aspirational' NOT being one of the Hampton principles for a regulator.

Now in business we can see why this might be desirable since businesses generally have to compete to provide services and goods in competition. They don't need a government regulator to beat them up if the consumers have lots of ability to choose. If they are busy competing the regulator has less work to do - the consumer already does it for them.

We can see that there are indeed some goods and services which probably do need a stronger government regulator, such as the FSA has become for personal financial services and the utilities. In particular our utilities are supposed to be more heavily regulated since competition is not strong. But state schooling has some problems in responding to demand like utilities.

So you can either have a big bad regulator called OFSTED coming to get you, or you can just get on with your job as a profession and make OFSTED grow smaller. I think you want Hampton because it means OFSTED can't tell schools to aim higher.

Well okay but now you need some other way of allowing aspiration, perhaps by allowing parents to choose more freely?

But you seem to want none of it at all, and it just seems that there is nothing that can be done to respond to unhappy parents and children except to tell them to report to the local comprehensive.

This is very simplistic but I wish we could hear from LSN how they are going to be responsive to parent and child demand, especially for academic improvement.

I really think we are headed in to a new dark age in the UK unless the whole teaching establishment raises its game, and teachers should be challenging the government and taking charge - in ways which parents and children crave.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Mon, 11/06/2012 - 21:49

"I think you want Hampton because it means OFSTED can't tell schools to aim higher."

Hampton concluded that the best way for regulators to drive improvement is for them to required organisations to be fully implementing well respected professional processes of improvement.

If they are not then this would be a 'cause for protection' and appropriate regulator intervention would ensue.

So regulators who are obliged to Hampton can and do demand organisation be engaged in robust continuous cycles of improvement, internal communication and reporting to all stakeholders.

I want schools to improve intelligently, effectively and in a sustainable way Ben.

What's happening at present is that schools are jumping through too many politically defined hoops in order to avoid huge punishment. This process suffocates balanced and sustainable improvement and the compromises the professionalisation of those working on the front line.


Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.