OFSTED, Criteria and the Nature of Social Understanding: A Wittgensteinian Critique of the Practice of Educational Judgement

Abstract

Since their inception in 1993 OFSTED inspections have generated considerable controversy amongst teachers and educationists generally. Much of the criticism to date has centred on the effects which such inspections have had on schools and their staffs. In contrast little sustained concern has been shown about the underlying assumptions of the OFSTED inspection process. This article identifies as the central feature of that process a particular but tacit conception of judgement. This conception is examined from an essentially Wittgensteinian perspective and is shown to rely on an imprecise understanding of the nature of criteria. It is argued that the OFSTED approach implicitly represents what are in fact conventional criteria, having no guarantee of broad agreement, as if they were criteria having such agreement. As a result severe doubts are raised about the validity of the judgements made and hence of the inspection process generally.

Raising of the participation age in the UK: the dichotomy between full participation and institutional accountability

“…First, Gilroy and Wilcox (1997) argue that the inspection process is fundamentally flawed, as it is a subjective process requiring a quantitative judgement to be made based on primarily qualitative data. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an analysis of current inspection regimes from different countries but it is important to acknowledge that the system used in England is not without its critics (Perryman, 2007;Ball, 2003).…”

The Front and Back Stages of Swedish School Inspection: Opening the Black Box of Judgment

“…Fidler, Early, Ouston, and Davies (1998), on the other hand, discovered discrepancies between inspectors' and schools' own judgments. Others have questioned the procedural techniques used to measure educational quality (Gilroy & Wilcox, 1997;Campbell & Husbands, 2000). For example, Campbell and Husbands (2000, p. 46) found a "discrepancy between the expressed model of inspection set out in detail in FAQs, the methodology papers and the accompanying procedure, and the mechanisms through which inspectors form judgements."…”

Beliefs and ICT: what can we learn from experienced educators?

“…Beliefs do not determine or predict teacher behaviour but they set out the 'terms of reference' for evaluation of teaching and learning and they illustrate that judgements made about teaching are reflexive and necessarily 'bend back' to internal systems of meaning (Gilroy and Wilcox, 1997;Winter, 1989). Beliefs are subjective and need not seek logical validation but they are not easily differentiated from 'knowledge', in particular they are enmeshed with the kind of personal knowledge described by Polanyi (1969) and by Eraut (1998) to cover 'what individuals bring to situations that enables them to think, interact and perform.…”