Am I surprised?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8599616.stm
No.
Am I bothered? Definitely a huge dirty great big whacking YES!
The report in the link above suggests that Ofsted altered the report into Haringey to strengthen the case against Ms Shoesmith. It implied that the judgments made about her competence were included in the final statement rather than the initial one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_04_2010_report.pdf
This amendment, it has been argued, came about because of the direct intervention of government or even Mr. Ballsup himself. Of course, the government are sticking resolutely to the conviction that Ofsted is independent and cannot be influenced by a phone call or email from elsewhere.
Am I particularly bothered about Sharon Shoesmith herself? Not personally, no. I think that there is a certain amount of complacency from some of these people in the so-called high echelons of governance that makes them feel invincible irrespective of the incompetence that they or their teams inflict upon child after child after child.
People are paid a phenomenal amount of money to hold these positions and therefore, to some extent, should be prepared to take the ultimate responsibility for the inaction or incompetence of those within their organisation. However, there is another argument that could ask why should the likes of Shoesmith be directly responsible for the errors of one or two, or in this case, many professionals who should no better? Can a leader really be responsible for all of the flaws in the system and the people who imply that they are one thing and in reality are far below expectation?
In a way, that is irrelevant. However many people they sack from Haringey is not going to bring the child back to life. There is nothing that can compensate for that loss, the incomprehensible suffering and the perpetual neglect and incompetence that took place. Sacking the head of service may make some people feel as though they have done the right thing but where does it stop? Should it stop with Shoesmith? Who was her line manager and who was her line manager reporting to? If you take it to its logical conclusion, it may lie at the feet of Ed Balls – and then who line manages him? Maybe it should have been Gordy who took the brunt, even though he cannot possibly be held to account for something that happened beyond his control.
No, Shoesmith should have looked at what was happening. The control and understanding of the service that was being provided was not there. Expecting a person with an education background to fully comprehend the working of social services as part of an integrated children’s service is quite insane, and visa versa. So, we are back to blaming the government then for implementing this seemingly impossible programme of working.
But what of Ofsted in this name and blame society? Should the individual inspectors who allegedly doctored the reports have their heads on the chopping block, or like Shoesmith, should it be the bod at the top? Should Ms. Gilbert be contemplating her position over her chocolate Easter eggs in whatever house her husband has chosen to flip in?
And what of the potential other Ofsted reports that have been ‘managed’ to ensure that they state things that the original report did not say?
What of the Ofsted reports that graded certain areas of a school as good that were altered to make them read as inadequate in order to comply with the predestined course of action that everyone in authority wanted to take?
What of the phone calls that are carefully taken to ensure there is no prospect of tracking?
What of the deleted emails and the secret meetings that happen prior to and during normal school inspections?
Where the hell is there a possibility of independence when there are so many surreptitious and underlying twists and turns that would need a mighty proficient detective to find?
Call me a cynic if you like but the single reason that I am interested in what happens to Ms. Shoesmith is what it means for the accountability of organisations that thrust accountability on others without having the foresight to consider what they should actually be accountable for.
Call me a cynic if you like but the reason that I want Ms. Shoesmith to succeed in her appeal against this sacking is to expose the sham of independence that Ofsted consistently suggest is in place.
Before I go any further, I do want to mention the fact that there is a legitimate process of redrafting that takes place in any Ofsted report. The initial report, whether it be on a department, a subject or a school, is given to the recipient to read and ensure that there are no inaccuracies. The main ‘flavour’ and judgment of the report usually remains the same but at least there is the opportunity to disagree and comment, even if there is potentially a futility in doing so.
But looking at this case, like I am sure there are many more, there is a complete difference in the statements of recommendation that would vindicate some for the course of action they took in the sacking of this woman. These are fundamental changes that cannot be ignored and would not come about in the general redrafting of a final report.
In the first report there was hardly a mention about the management competencies of the leader of the Children’s Services in Haringey. In the second ‘final report’ it was the first statement at the top of the recommendations, thus giving the Minister for Education the ammunition with which to fire the shots.
Have these people so much affront that they cannot contemplate people questioning such actions?
How dare they!
Where the hell is our democracy right now?
The other issue, as I said, is about what this case means to others who have found themselves in similar positions.
There must be more than one case. Ms. Shoesmith, without necessarily realising it, is highlighting the potential for other similar cases to be exposed. If she had some nous about her, when it comes to the final ruling and if, by present appearance, she wins her case for unfair dismissal, then should publicly announce the fact that she suspects that she is just one high profile case where this injustice has taken place and maybe it is time for others to come forward and state their case against the unfairness of their own dismissal.
Even if she doesn’t say this, then perhaps these people should come forward and declare themselves. I know of more than one or two head teachers, for instance, who have felt a need to resign because of the pressure placed upon them to remove themselves from a school deemed as unsatisfactory because the wrong measures are in place. I know a head teacher or two who have received Ofsted reports that do not reflect the true nature of their school and have found inexplicable pressure to conform to a way of working that defies their very belief in education, all because of the so-called independence of an organisation established to affirm the politicisation of the educational system.
I’d be happy to place myself forward to collate and enquire and to gather the evidence of many injustices that have taken place since the implementation of the inspection routine.
And that is just the head teachers. What about the hundreds of teaching staff whose confidence and even ability to teach have been undermined because of mistruths and factual inaccuracies about their competence? What about the teachers who dogmatically refused to succumb to a pedagogy that was utterly contemptible and in direct contrast to all that they knew was right for children, and for that refusal they were graded as ‘unsatisfactory’? What of those who are not in the classrooms right now, in their rightful place, where they ought to be, imparting the type of learning that our children deserve, thrilling, enthralling and challenging these young people to be inquisitive, to sparkle and to enjoy?
Am I bothered? You bloody well bet I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment