The following article, by Derek Blunt, was originally published in Digital Education in April 2014. Although there have been various changes since I wrote this, and “very recently “ ought to be changed to “some time ago”, the general thrust of the article is still apposite, and the 4 Ofsted judgements are still as follows:
grade 1: outstanding
grade 2: good
grade 3: requires improvement
grade 4: inadequate
Should you ever find yourself looking for examples of what Kenneth Hudson referred to as “diseased English”, I think you could do worse than looking at Ofsted guidance or listening to Ofsted pronouncements. Ofsted is the name of the schools inspectorate in England, but the same kind of considerations apply anywhere that a regulatory body attempts to go into too much detail, with all the exposition and clarification and verbal gymnastics that that entails, rather than simply evaluate the quality of the outcomes.
Sadly, The Dictionary of Diseased English is out of print, but if you can get hold of a second-hand copy, do. It was published in 1980, and is still relevant.
Derek Blunt finds Ofsted-speak to be in need of improvement.
Click the pic to see this on Amazon (Associate link)
Very recently, the category of “Adequate” for independent school inspections was changed to “in need of improvement”. This brings independent inspections into line with those for maintained schools, where the “satisfactory” judgement was changed to “In need of improvement”.
In other words, “satisfactory” now means “unsatisfactory”, and “adequate” now means “inadequate”.
In this 1984-like landscape, where words change their meanings according to the latest “thinking” and conventional “wisdom”, anyone who tries to deliver an Ofsted-approved lesson is nuts. Even if you succeeded, the rules could change tomorrow, rendering your “Outstanding” lesson “Underwhelming”, or whatever new term someone decides to coin.
Here’s a case in point. Not that long ago, it was de rigueur to make sure every lesson had three parts: an introduction in which the teacher “shared” the learning objectives; the main part of the lesson; and a plenary. That is now recognised as a load of nonsense – and rightly so. A good teacher will ensure that there are many introductions, “main” lesson time and plenaries as necessary, according to the nature of the work itself, the main purpose of the lesson and the make-up of the class.
There is something quite immoral about trying to deliver an Ofsted-approved lesson anyway. The aim should be to ensure kids are taught properly, and that they learn, not to jump through some remote bureaucracy’s artificial hoops.
Use Ofsted criteria of “Outstanding” lessons by all means as a set of criteria, but I say use them as a sort of general reference, not a checklist.
Derek Blunt: Blunt by name, blunt by nature.
