Ofsted
I hate quangos and regulators, but realistically I know that in some places they are a necessity. One of those is schools. In my book I mention something about the Ofsted inspection process being too docketed and process driven, with a stock of phrases used for analysis which make very ineffective use of a language capable of much more dynamic application to paint pictures and describe events. Too much energy is involved in earning accolades in this curious regulatory-speak by teachers, who in consequences use their intuition and experience less. But in the end we need Ofsted and they do highlight the weaknesses, stubborn in many areas, which have to be overcome to deliver educational opportunity of a high standard to all.
When it comes to children in need, I am not so convinced. Ofsted is not the organisation to be involved. The Ed Balls educational empire with its folksy handle, now lacking the sharp intelligence of Lord Adonis, drags many issues under its roof and this is one of them. The assessment of risk of potential victims among vulnerable children, the legal process to which ultimate decisions are referred and the network, sorely understaffed and resourced, of the social workers who do the fieldwork in this life and death area is a combination unfit for purpose which is failing even more than before. Ofsted are not making things better and should not be involved here. Neither should Ed Balls.
Root and branch reform is needed. Knowing I would be more or less ignored, I proposed huge changes which, were they in effect, would transform this whole critical contribution to the welfare of the vulnerable. As the months go by the sense and value of my proposals, hidden in the bowels of a task force archive, grows ever more obvious. Until there is a proper, dedicated Child Protection Service it is impossible to fashion a timely and effective Inspectorate of its operations.