By Eric King-
Education secretary Damian Hinds has been accused of undermining chief of Ofsted, Amanda Spieldman, in an open letter sent to the chief of Ofsted
Hinds sent specific guidelines to Ofsted’s head, Amanda Spieldman in relation to new plans to examine multi academy trusts (MATs).
Hinds letter to chief of Ofsted, Amanda Spieldman, has been described as intimidating and undermining by two members of the eye of media.com’s thinktank team. One of the members in particular- a feminist- has rapped the Education head, who been complemented several times by this publication for his contribution to the improved standard of education in the Britain, particularly through increased funding.
The woman who raised alarm over the letter is a member of The Eye Of Media.Com’s thinktank team, who who also writes for this publication from time to time. A strong article on the matter which she submitted was shelved by the editorial whilst we await a response from the Department of Education over the allegation. The woman accuses Hinds of undermining Spieldman’s ability to execute her function in the manner stated by the Ofsted chief.
Ofsted announced new plans to carry out “summary evaluations” of MATs after visiting schools which are due an inspection . Previously, inspections were conducted weekly, but under new plans they will only be conducted over two terms. The reasons for the change has not been stated, although it is assumed it is because of the general autonomy afforded to Multiple Academy Trust schools. Evaluations will also include survey visits to schools within a MAT which are not being inspected, but only with the permission of the schools.
The letter which has led to the accusation states: ”I am aware you will now be making operational changes which you will now refer to as ‘MAT summary evaluations’, and that your officials have been discussing these changes. This includes scheduling school inspections that are part of a MAT summary evaluation over a period of up to two terms,rather than over a week. Once all school inspection reports have been published, you will then spend time speaking to MAT leaders and other headteachers across the MAT before sending and publishing a letter to the MAT leaders.
”As part of this time with the MAT, you also intend to carry out, only with the agreement of school and MAT leaders,
short survey visits to schools not inspected as part of the MAT summary evaluation, to
help inspectors get a rounded picture of the MAT. I understand that you have tested these changes with MAT leaders who suggest that the changes are welcome and will help to reduce workload burden and increase the
efficiency and quality of a MAT summary evaluation.
However, I ask that you continue to evaluate these changes, to ensure these aims are met. On the school survey visits in
particular, I ask that you make clear that it is school and MAT leaders’ choice that inspectors can visit schools that are not being inspected and ensure that these visits do not create undue burdens on the schools or MAT. You will also need to be clear that
these are in no sense a school inspection, or something which can affect the normal schedule for school inspections, and ensure there is no suggestion that these schools have been assessed or inspected”.
The letter, which was said to be a development of the last letter from Hinds predecessor, Nicky Morgan, was different to Morgan’s in purpose. Some member s of the team that discussed the contents of the letter said it was simply a letter following a practise between the Minister of Education and the Ofsted boss. However, three females and two males said many of the points mentioned in Hinds letter to Spieldsman were unnecessary, and appeared to be undermining the Ofsted Boss’s capability to achieve what she had already said she would do. One female writer said ”at best even if the conclusion is inaccurate, Hinds open letter would be attention seeking”.
A representative from the Department Of Education told The Eye Of Media.Com that the conclusion drawn that Ms Spieldman was being undermined was ”not supported by fact”, but was unable to offer an on the spot explanation for why the minister of education had emphasised in an open letter the need for Ms Spieldman to abide by the declarations she had said, and why he felt the need to address her in an open letter.
NETWORK
Multi Academy Trusts allow them to be local whilst supporting a large network of schools expand, and support an integrated network of schools. Schools under the MAT model also have the potential to retain its unique characteristics and maintain its own local governing body. Headteachers of these schools have a high degree of autonomy in leading their schools, whilst giving them the freedom to focus on teaching and learning. Great issue has been taken
Trustees
The trustees are responsible for the same three core governance functions performed by the
governing body in a maintained school: setting the direction, holding the headteacher to
account and ensuring financial probity. As charity trustees, they must also ensure that they
are complying with charity law requirements. Academy trusts are charitable companies and
the trustees are company directors and must comply with company law requirements
Mr Hinds has written to Ms Spieldman today urging the inspectorate not to place “undue burden”on MATs when visiting these schools and not to refer to its findings as MAT inspections. His letter emphasises the need for Ms Spieldman to ensure all inspections are done with the permission of the school
ADVERTISEMENT
“On the school survey visits in particular, I ask that you make clear that it is school and MAT leaders’ choice whether inspectors can visit schools that are not being inspected and ensure that these visits do not create undue burdens on the schools or MAT,” his letter says.
“You will also need to be clear that these are in no sense a school inspection, or something which can affect the normal schedule for school inspections, and ensure there is no suggestion that these schools have been assessed or inspected.”
Ofsted does not have the power to inspect MATs but has been assessing their work by inspecting batches of the schools in the same trust.
It has now unveiled new plans to carry out more detailed summary evaluations of MATs which would involve inspecting schools over one or two terms and then discussing their findings with MAT leaders before publishing its findings.
Ofsted has been approached for a comment