What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke.
Also what does software have to do with that case?
Also what does software have to do with that case?
Here's what it's saying, literally:
> An Ofsted inspection "contributed" to the death of head teacher Ruth Perry, an inquest has ruled.
> The inspection "lacked fairness, respect and sensitivity" and was at times "rude and intimidating", senior coroner Heidi Connor said.
> Mrs Perry, 53, took her own life in January while waiting for an Ofsted report to be published.
Seems entirely uncontroversial for them to review their practices and nowhere in there is it saying that teachers need less oversight.
They absolutely do. In fact they're going on strike in the UK over intolerable working conditions, and while the MSM report this as ostensibly about "pay" the deeper reason is that they are micro-managed to hell.
Yes yes!
They are crying out for this too. I was involved in an international conference a few weeks ago on attachment theory and education and all the UK and US teachers said that they want more training to become more self-sufficient in IT. They want more autonomy over elements of the curriculum that use tech.
They are also uncomfortable with using Big-Tech products in schools and concerned for the children over privacy.
Unfortunately I can't post the video b/c rights/confidentiality but if I am ever able I will do so.
Presumably this feels even more unfair if the computer eats the inspectors' homework.
Are you suggesting this is a binary decision, where the only options is choosing "more oversight" or "less oversight"?
Oversight is not a knob that you turn up or down. I speak as someone with experience in this field when I say that education like a lot of other things is complex enough that “overnight”, especially with output suitable for public consumption, is far from trivial to deliver.
Again, I don’t think that you’re arguing in good faith.
The fundamental goal is not to punish teachers and headmasters/headmistreses. The goal is to ensure good quality and safe education for the students.
If the school is inadequate or even close to it that should never be a surprise to the people working in it. The expectations should have been clear enough that anyone can self-asses themselves. There should be no big surprises during the inspection. That is neither “less” nor “more” oversight, but more predictable oversight.
Furthermore the headteacher was in her position for 13 years. If the problems found were indeed so outrageous to rate the whole school inadequate then shouldn’t she have been inspected earlier and more often? During those 13 years multiple cohorts of students entered the school, studied and then graduated from it. The oversight report alleges during the whole time they attended a school with serious safeguarding issues. Isn’t that really bad? How did the oversight system let that happen? This is in fact asking for not less oversight but for more frequent one.
On the other hand the school managed to turn around in a few short months and become rated “good” from “inadequate”. It is alleged the problems actually were not deep and they were rectified within weeks after the inspection. There were some discrepancies with record keeping and a few protocols needed tightening up. The common understanding is that Ruth would have lost her job when the “inadequate” inspection report is published. Is that the best way to achieve our goal of high quality and safe education system? Wouldn’t it be better if the oversight system gave them an advance warning and time to improve? Absolutely no feedback for 13 years and then suddenly feedback with the most severe consequences is not a way to ensure good outcomes.
I mean we all get OKRs, objectives etc but government employees are a special case.