Why I Dislike Most Ofsted Inspectors...

Ofsted is a beast that has grown beyond comprehension; they now essentially run education under the leadership of Sir Michael Wilshaw (despite claims of independence from the DfE). All the ignorant ministers think he's wonderful, the media love him because he gives them soundbites that slate teachers (the media really like slating teachers, in case you hadn't noticed) which he later tries to claim have been taken out of context. Teachers, in general, however, can't stand the bloke nor his inspectorate.

Few people actually like or agree with those who judge them, other than those who require a wet wipe for the end of their nose, but Ofsted not only take a biscuit, but arguably the whole packet.

What really gets me about Wilshaw (and the same goes for his mob, sorry, inspectors) is that he's quite clearly forgotten what it's like to be a classroom teacher. He makes statements about "moaning teachers" (here's the BBC link). but neglects to consider that perhaps his seemingly continuous gripes in the media about teachers possibly leads to the "moaning". He became a headteacher at the age of 39, and is nearly 70 now, so it's fair to say that he has had little recent classroom experience.

I know that I'm supposed to be talking about Ofsted inspectors and have spent wordage so far on Wilshaw alone, but he is their leader. Let's face it, the minions follow their leader, and the problem is that I wouldn't urinate on the leader if he spontaneously combusted. That aside, he actually has the right idea at heart: he wants all children to have the best opportunity to fulfil their potential, and no-one (not even me) can argue with that. The methods he employs to impose this, however, are questionable.

So if Wilshaw's so great, why do his minions constantly ignore him? He has said for a while now that he doesn't have a particular lesson style in mind as long as the children learn and progress at a fast rate. Fair enough; most teachers know that. Unfortunately, many inspectors don't (see the blog Scenes From The Battleground for more info) and they expect to see the teacher not teach - group work/discovery etc. Wilshaw is quite clearly a poor leader if he can't get his message across; I shall be struck down for besmirching the good Sir Michael's name!

And so onto my main gripe: Ofsted are very keen on data and contain a huge proportion of failed classroom practitioners (don't believe the "we only employ top quality headteachers" rubbish). Please bear in mind that many failed in the classroom in days gone by, when discipline was a whole lot easier. No, I don't mean that you could cane the poo out of a child who misbehaved back then, although Sir Mike did admit to doing so. I mean that parents' views hadn't been tainted by an acidic media, meaning that now loads of them believe teachers are the spawn of Satan (perhaps they're right in some cases, judging by the abuse cases that seem to be mounting up) and fair game for verbal abuse.

Ofsted hold so much power nowadays that a pretty average inspector (one with little or no track record, and there are plenty) can essentially decide the fate of a school on a whim. We live in a time where anything Ofsted say, goes; if Ofsted wanted winter to be summer, then so be it - they would manipulate data to show that it would be beneficial, believe-you-me. So if the headteacher manages to annoy an inspector early on (I have experienced this), then there really is no point in trying because the outcome has already been determined. Inspectors know this, and in some cases, play on it. Professionalism isn't part of the equation; "I'm going to show you who's boss" is.

I also have a problem with the fact that Ofsted only recruit "outstanding" teachers or headteachers. If the people they are recruiting are that good, why the hell are they wasting their time judging sub-standard practitioners (it's all relative) when they could be getting the UK up the Pisa league tables? They clearly either dislike teaching (so shouldn't be involved in education at all) or are rubbish teachers (so shouldn't be inspectors). Either way, neither is desirable or employable.

That's why I can't stand Ofsted inspectors; and that's why I am rude to them at every given opportunity. If you ever wanted to see "poacher turned gamekeeper" personified, just glance at an Ofsted inspector and stifle the urge to vomit over them. It's a waste of good vomit after all.

Is The End Nigh For Graded Lesson Observations?

When I was training to be a teacher all those moons ago, lesson observations were generally a pretty positive experience. They were essentially pass or fail, and would have to be pretty awful to fail. They would focus on the following:

• What went well (where have I heard that before?);
• Even better if (Groundhog Day?) I did a couple of things - how I could have improved the lesson;
• My target is (Deja vu?) to try some new stuff to improve my teaching.

I actually quite liked lesson observations, although I wouldn't say that my day was made by one, but I saw them as a positive way of improving my practise.

Nowadays, in the era of "performance related pay" and express capability procedures brought in during Michael Gove's watch as Secretary of State for Education, although I suspect others would have brought it in as a desperate attempt to tighten education's belt, lesson observations can make or break a teaching career or a school, depending on who the observer(s) is. They have moved away from their supportive nature and become a threatening entity in education.

For those (presumably few, if any) of you who don't know, lessons are graded by management or Ofsted inspectors on a scale from 1 to 4:

1. Outstanding.
2. Good
3. Requires Improvement
4. Inadequate

In order to avoid "action plans" or "capability" procedures, a teacher must be consistently a 1 or 2, although the odd 3 is acceptable as everyone has a bad day, but expect to be seen again pretty quickly and make sure you get a 1 or 2 or else! You'd think that's fair enough, and so would pretty much every teacher as we all, as educators, want to produce lessons that encourage and enhance learning. And actually you knew where you were when Ofsted had a particular style of lesson/teaching that they wanted to see, because ultimately the observation was a box ticking exercise.

Now I'm not saying that I agree with Ofsted wanting to see a particular type of teaching, in fact I actively oppose it, but if a teacher's livelihood depends upon lesson observation gradings, then I don't see that you there is any fairer way. The problem is that now Ofsted have actively said that they don't want to see a particular style of teaching as long as learning is "rapid and sustained".

This therefore leaves observers in a bit of a dilemma when grading lesson observations, because it now becomes a personal opinion, which is anything but fair. One would hope that observers could set aside personal opinions regarding the teacher and just grade the lesson, but in my experience, this is seemingly impossible. Comments such as "I would have done it this way" and "I didn't like that" in the feedback are fairly commonplace, and surely it's irrelevant what the observer thinks; what the children in the class think is the important thing. Gradings that are linked to pay or, at worst, capability, become a personal opinion; expect numerous lawsuits for wrongful dismissal

So, as a result, some schools are abandoning lesson observation gradings to make teachers more comfortable and allow them to try to improve their practise without fear of reprisals if it doesn't go to plan straight away. It's brave but actually sensible. My school won't do it (for many reasons, most based upon the personality of the person at the top of the tree), and the fact that we now have numerous leaving speeches every term seems to be the modern trend (I personally find this cut-throat attitude towards staff/people unpleasant). The fact that children don't respond well to constantly changing staff seems to be ignored now, and please don't think that if a teacher is not up to the job then they should not be moved out, but many teachers who are "forced" (I did use the correct word there) out are actually pretty good in the classroom, but not liked by the person/people making the decisions. And what is rarely taken into account is whether the teacher being forced out can be replaced with somebody as good or better - often this isn't the case.

But what this also should mean is that Ofsted inspectors will no longer need to observe lessons, making an Ofsted inspection less stressful for classroom teachers, and ensuring taht leadership in schools actually earn their hefty pay packets. A "learning walk" (I hate that name too, but you all know what it means) will be sufficient to judge the atmosphere for learning in a school. Consistently good lessons will deliver consistently good results in exams. Inspectors therefore, will just need to look at the data of the school, aided by some informed words from SLT, to judge the school. This won't happen as I get the impression that inspectors like going into classrooms and making teachers uncomfortable; maybe I'm wrong.

The trouble is that I think that Messrs Gove and Wilshaw like threatening teachers, so the status quo will remain and the DfE budget will soar as thousands of teachers face capability based on the whim of SLT, or possibly because that particular member of SLT finds separating personal and professional feelings difficult.

This is without mentioning the potential exodus from the profession that already has a huge shortage ,in certain subjects, of adequate staff. Politicians and suits in large offices really are working wonders in education...

Ofsted's Whimsical Judgements: The Fallout

I work in a school that has been through an Ofsted inspection within the last year. I won't pretend that it was a pleasant experience because it was anything but. A large number of colleagues were reduced to tears and a significant number have left or are leaving teaching as a result. Perhaps some of them should leave the profession, but not all.

At the time the school was certainly not outstanding, and only had elements of good, but Ofsted deemed that it should be placed in Special Measures. The reasons given were harsh but accepted by the school and everyone got on with it because there was nothing we could immediately do about it.

This Ofsted grading has had a far greater impact and could, not just in a worst case scenario, actually end up being fatal for the school. The Ofsted inspector's unquestioned judgements have far reaching consequences that these whimsical individuals fail to realise, whether through choice or ignorance.

Since the "judgement" the number of complaints from parents has increased hugely. Some are certainly justified but if all the complaints are valid then why weren't they raised beforehand? What we are finding is that parents can now justify their unquestioned backing of their "faultless" children by saying "it's the school that's crap because Ofsted said so". The kids aren't stupid either and are fuelling this to save their own bacon, but as a colleague pointed out to a serial miscreant "Would you have agreed with Ofsted if they'd have said we were brilliant?", to which the answer was "No".

Due to the Ofsted grading we now have various pressures on us as staff (not just teachers) to do exactly what HMI say in order to "improve". What staff are quickly realising is that what one person regards as improvement, another person doesn't due to teaching's subjectivity, so ultimately whatever we do as a staff body we are in the laps of the gods - you are either in favour or you're not. If the inspectors aren't in a good mood we're stuffed. Is that really fair?

New initiatives are dreamt up every five minutes it seems, and teachers are understandably jumping ship as quick as they can meaning that the school has to replace them. But who wants to come to work in a school in Special Measures? Not enough people it seems, so classes in many subjects will be staffed with supply teachers which isn't going to help anyone other than the supply agencies who fill the positions. Good exam results come from diligent children with consistent teaching from as few different teachers as possible. Constant change is a recipe for disaster, a recipe that schools in this position have no choice over.

Whatever you think of Ofsted Chief Sir Michael Wilshaw (I can't say that I'm a fan myself), he does occasionally make the right noises from his plush office in Westminster regarding inspections. Unfortunately his finger is so far from the pulse that whatever he says is irrelevant because his inspectors simply aren't doing it. Their judgements go unquestioned and ultimately they could argue that Sir Alex Ferguson was the greatest manager Chelsea ever had and people would believe it. Teachers in school are being pulled and pushed in numerous directions by a desperate management who don't really know how to get Ofsted to give the school a better grade, because even Ofsted aren't sure what they are looking for. It's making people ill (more supply staff required to cover) and forcing people out who can't be replaced (yet more supply staff required), so what chance have we got?

Ofsted is now a beast that probably can't be tamed and will destroy education in the schools that aren't fashionable in government/their eyes. They are not independent of government, in fact they have recently stated that if schools don't follow the new government Performance Related Pay guidelines, they will get downgraded upon inspection. They are too big an organisation and their inspectors too out of touch to be effective or accurate in their assessment of schools. Training is not a replacement for recent, hands-on experience. Schools genuinely close due to their whims, and this is can't be right because the inspectors are not always right.

But Michael Gove loves Ofsted, so that's ok then.

Lesson Observations

Let's be honest, lesson observations are a necessary evil; an evil that few teachers enjoy. When I first started teaching lesson observations were a pain but generally supportive and useful. I think it's fair to say that nowadays their usefulness is generally limited. It all depends who is doing the observing of course. The trouble is that many observations are given by senior leadership who rarely teach (and occasionally never have) due the the mountainous paperwork now involved in school management.

So what's changed? Essentially, not a lot. They have always been an indicator of whether a teacher should be encouraged to move on, whether to another school or another career. The main difference, and the teaching profession has Ofsted to thank for this, is that feedback is a lot more aggressive nowadays.

What does that mean though?

Ten or more years ago the lesson observation was there to check that your classroom wasn't a warzone and that you, as a teacher, were imparting the correct knowledge in a meaningful way to your cohort. Plenty of warning was given to the teacher (which probably shouldn't have happened as it gave the opportunity to refine their lesson which made it too artificial) and a relatively simple lesson plan required. There wasn't a particular style of teaching or focus (unless that was thought useful); individualism was acknowledged and respected. Students were expected to listen and do what they were asked. Feedback pointed out your good points and areas that needed work, with suggestions made as to how lessons could be improved. Phrases like "What you could have done was..." and "Something that you could try is..." were commonplace. There was little or no threat of competency, or if there was, it was uncommon and probably deserved. The grading was essentially pass or fail.

The experience isn't even close to that now. Schools try to replicate an Ofsted inspection by giving little notice for observations (a day or so is fairly commone, which should be enough in all honesty). Full lesson plans and detailed seating plans are required which show all the students with special needs and whether they speak English as a second language or receive free school meals which is a current target group for government/Ofsted and therefore schools. Books must be marked with current grades or levels and a dialogue between teacher and student which will probably involve an individual question that forces the student to practise a teacher-noted gap in their learning. During the lesson the teacher must continually assess each child individually and refer back to the lesson objective. Each child must be called upon by the teacher to give or explain an answer by name and be able to tell the observer exactly what they are learning and convince them that this happens every lesson. Lessons and activities must be "active", which means that the students discover new concepts rather than get told/taught them. The feedback then gives the teacher a grade from 1 to 4 (3 and 4 are no go areas and risk competency - they should be renamed "You are crap") and involve phrases like "They will pick up on..." and "They will expect to see...", with the "they" referring to Ofsted. Any positives are glossed over and the weaknesses are pointed out endlessly, although often no ways of improving are suggested coherently. The teacher will often leave the feedback feeling pretty down, regardless of their grade.

So the differences are:

• It has gone from a relatively positive thing (possibly too positive at times) to being a threat to a teacher's livelihood when there is a shortage of decent teachers.
• The focus has moved from how you could improve your teaching to what Ofsted would want to see, which is usually a guess as it's not clear that Ofsted really know what they want either.
• Individualism was encouraged to a certain extent but now frowned upon for fear that the inspectors have a particular teaching model.
• Teachers aren't allowed to teach; the sudents have to teach themselves as the "teacher" wanders around "facilitating" discussion.

This is purely because Ofsted now have ultimate and unquestioned power over all state funded schools in England. Their judgements are unquestioned with the impression being amongst teachers that the inspectors make their judgement before they turn up and find evidence to back that judgement up. Despite what Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools says, inspectors have a set image of a "decent" lesson and if you don't do that you are knackered.

But apparently education in England is rigorous and fit for purpose. I beg to differ.

Ofsted Don't Want A Show

Sir Michael is out of his hibernation period and greets schools with this: Click here!

This interview only goes to show how out of touch the Chief Inspector of Schools is. I have a number of issues with this:

1. Not for one minute does he consider why teachers "put on a show" for Ofsted inspectors.
2. He claims that Ofsted don't have a preconceived idea of the ingredients that make a good lesson.
3. Schools should just carry on as normal when Ofsted are in.

Ofsted holds all the cards in education at present - they have outgrown their remit. Their judgements go unquestioned and unchallenged in the main. When someone does dare challenge an Ofsted judgement they are accused of not being forward thinking, happy with mediocrity and various other politically barbed comments from various parts of Whitehall.

Ofsted has the power to make or break careers in education with one of their judgements. Many teachers firmly believe that inspectors judge a school before they have actually arrived based upon exam results, value-added etc. As any half-competent mathematician will tell you, data can be made to show what you want it to show without too much effort. Lesson observations and conversations with management are also subjective. Observations can go a number of ways that are generally out of the control of the teacher. A really bad lesson is obvious to both inspector and teacher, but otherwise it's harder to call unless you literally tick off bulletpoints in a list of things inspectors want to see. So Wilshaw's claim that there isn't a particular type of teaching expected has to be at least partly rubbish, or the message hasn't filtered down to the Ofsted minions.

Wilshaw claims to want to see children engaged in their learning, but his inspectors seem to regard this as meaning "the teacher says as little as possible" and the students "discover" what they would have been "taught" is bygone eras. There are some things that are very difficult to "discover" and need to be "taught", although this is frowned upon by Ofsted as the learning is deemed "passive", whereas Ofsted want to see "active learning". If you are playing Education Buzz Word Bingo you may be close to shouting "HOUSE" at this stage.

A teacher should be allowed to decide whether their charges can "discover" something new or need to be "taught" it. Teachers are (still) professionals, for the time being at least. The trouble is that this decision is taken out of their hands. Thousands, if not millions of pounds are spent by schools every year on speakers who tell staff that Ofsted want to see teachers leading less from the front, "playing the Ofsted game". This money could be used to resource faculties fully rather than giving tips on Ofsted hoop-jumping. The fact is that these (presumably rich) people are employed by many schools each year, and must know what they are talking about in order to keep getting invited. So Wilshaw claiming that there is no game is frankly wrong and the fact that there is a market for Ofsted inspectors to charge £600 per day to "help" schools get through an inspection only proves this (see this article from The Independent: Click here!).

The main thing is that teachers are rarely sure of what Ofsted actually wants and their "show" for the inspectors is just like a pet trying to impress its owner, which many appear to get panned for. With Ofsted regularly changing the goalposts since Sir Michael's ascension to the "throne", teachers have no idea what to do.

Eventually teachers will just give up in a number of ways. They could leave the profession as many are doing, to be replaced by fresh faced top graduates through scheme like Teach First, but these schemes are a mixed blessing for the future of education as many of these graduates leave teaching after just a few years. How teachers should give up is by not caring what Ofsted say, and they can do this in a number of ways:

• Don't get lesson feedback - by getting feedback you are showing the inspectors that you actually value what they think, and let's face it, no teachers really do. So don't bother.
• Only be civil to them, never go out of your way to smile at them, even if they smile at you. Let them know that they are unwelcome because they are. Some inspectors delude themselves into thinking that they are doing schools and teachers a favour (I have had an interesting conversation with the partner of an inspector who was brave enough to call themselves "Anonymous"). They are not, they are an expensive political animal that no-one wants or likes except other inspectors, their partners or narcisistic politicians.
• Get them involved in a lesson by asking them questions. Embarrass them; put them on the spot; after all that is what they are doing to you and your colleagues so why shouldn't they taste their own medicine? If they make a stupid comment, make it very clear that you think it's a stupid comment; I once replied to an inspector who observed a challenging class and said "They seem like a nice bunch" with the following: "How would you know? You've seen them for half an hour and just looked at books and folders, not talking to a single one of them." He left with his tail between his legs after he asked if I wanted feedback and I replied "There is nothing you could possibly tell me that would be of any benefit to my teaching practise".

Wilshaw can make all the noises he likes from his ivory tower in Whitehall, with his direct line to his mucker Gove. Ofsted is now a political vehicle, used unapologetically to drive through ill-conceived government policy without question. Wilshaw may appear to disagree with Gove on some issues but his inspectors don't appear to.

Ofsted has outgrown it's own remit and really should be abolished for the future of education in England. If this doesn't happen the exodus of staff will continue and there won't be enough teachers left.

Ofsted "Copy and Paste" Scandal

This article turned up on the BBC News website today: Click Here!

Now anybody in education, apart from perhaps many headteachers, will tell you that this is not a massive surprise. Ofsted often make their judgements before actually visiting a school. They are a political animal and will make judgements based upon government policy, despite Chief Inspector Wilshaw's apparent best intentions and statements that teaching is "Christ's work on Earth".

The "scandal" centres around two primary school reports from the same company to which Ofsted outsources inspections, Tribal. Both inspections were headed by the same person and due to the fact that some of the statements in the reports read exactly the same, there seems little doubt that laziness has crept in and a higher agenda has influenced the reports. In my local area an academy, which I know quite a lot about for one reason or another, has just received "outstanding" gradings in every category when it apparently deserves none. One has to bear in mind that government (and therefore Ofsted) are keen to make every school an academy, and with education being such a vote winner, political decisions are bound to be made by inspectors.

Ofsted inspectors are usually former headteachers who want an easy life and something to boost their pension pot, or they are failed educators who have "befriended" the right people. An Ofsted inspector is paid around £60,000 per year, a pay cut for most headteachers, but a wage that is far higher than those they inspect. This should mean that inspections are done properly and written from scratch every time.

What the report seems to imply is that the inspectors write the reports and make a judgement, but Ofsted central office re-words things to ensure that the wording fits the grading. This would also suggest that grading can be made whimsically by inspection teams and the words written to fit that grading. Hardly a robust system, I'm sure you'd agree.

Ofsted, and their Fuhrer, sorry, leader, are not fit for purpose, and nor are their bosses - the Department for Education. No educator has a problem with standards being checked so that they remain high, but the current system is essentially corrupt and worthless. Not to mention demoralising.

No Notice Inspections - Who Cares?

Everyone thinks that teachers/schools/headteachers are scared of no notice Ofsted inspections, and the cowardly Michael Gove back-tracked on those in front of an audience of headteaches in Harrogate.

Let's get one thing straight, most teachers have absolutely no problem with no notice Ofsted inspections at all, as long as ridiculously detailed lesson plans aren't required, as they currently are. The lesson plans apparently required by Ofsted inspectors are of no use to teachers, and if the inspectors themselves can't tell what the teacher is teaching then either that teacher deserves an inadequate grade or the inspector shouldn't be observing or judging lessons - my guess is that the latter is almost always the case.

The only people who don't want no notice inspections are poor teachers and headteachers - I have said for years that inspections should be like "drop-ins" so that the inspectors see what usually happens rather than to souped up, one-off lesson as a show.

The problem is, and this is the real problem that teachers have with Ofsted, many inspectors have little or no recent classroom experience, if any at all, and often have no knowledge of the subject they are observing. Their judgements can make or break schools as well as teachers and are ill-informed and generally pre-judged.

Add to that the negative rhetoric of new Chief Inspector of Schools Sir Michael Wilshaw and Ofsted are now totally unfit for purpose, doing the exact opposite of their apparent mission to "aid the improvement of schools". Their new mission seems to be the demoralisation and destruction of the teaching profession, with Wilshaw himself saying that teacher morale is "unimportant".

Ofsted reports are good for nothing other than toilet paper, and they are not even very good for that.

I Can Hear The Beeping Of A Reversing Politician

It must be in the genetic make-up of a politician to make a bold, inflammatory statement and then retract at a far faster rate when they suddenly realise that these policies are both unworkable and unpopular. And so it comes to the turn of the Secretary of State for Education to putting his blunder bus into reverse on Ofsted inpsections whilst speaking to the National Association of Head Teachers. This isn't the first time when actually faced with talking to real people in education that Michael Gove has said stuff that will get him out of the room in one piece.

The "no-notice inspections" have been scrapped apparently, although Gove didn't manage to say what would replace them, which may suggest that he has no idea and was in fear of a lynching had he not made the comment. This also comes at a time when headteachers are being encouraged to report on the inspectors via a website the newly set up School View website, with cries of a lack of consistency and of inspectors having made up their mind before even arriving in school. It's something that I've experienced, so I know it goes on but what will that actually achieve? Headteachers will not want to rock the boat for fear that if they complain, the repercussions during the next inspection could be disasterous.

Gove also questionned whether Ofsted inspectors are paid enough at a mere £60,000 per year - more than most teachers, or should I say more than every regular classroom practioner in the country in a bid to encourage "the best" people to become inspectors. Outrageous suggestion - these people are parasites on the education profession and should be paid nothing. Any encouragement to force the collapse of the quango should be shouted from every rooftop in the country.

I notice that Gove made no reference to his deeply unpopular policy of forcing schools in to academy status, especially the day after the DfE asked dozens of academies to pay back their share of £15 million, due to a mis-calculation in Whitehall over the usage of predicted roles instead of actual roles. This will mean, according to the news, that the academies will each have to pay back around £200,000 and could lead to disaster for those institutions, unless their financial managers spotted the error, which one would assume is a little unlikely. Not  great advert for educational independence.

Until the British public vote by spoiling their ballot papers or not turning up at all, these idiots in Westminster will think that they are important and wrap themselves up in their own self-importance, surrounded by "Yes" men and women destroying the public sector. It makes no difference what their political affiliations are as all parties seem to have similar, if not identical policies designed to destroy the public sector.

Rant over.

No Music In Music Lessons

Ofsted have moaned that too many music lessons don't contain music, and you'd think that it would be a pre-requisite of music lesson - to play/create the stuff.

The trouble is, and this is true of all subjects, is that the teachers are receiving mixed messages from the inspectors. And by that I mean the following:

1. A room full of children, many with a limited aptitude for music, trying to create a masterpiece would be most people's idea of hell and totally unrealistic. It would just be a cacophony unless headphones were employed and then the teacher can't actually teach because the class can't hear the teacher. The class need to learn the fundamentals of creating listenable music before actually attempting to do it. Very few people are capable of writing something good in their teens or below, unless they are named Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. And unless all that is produced, sound-wise, is recorded, there is little or no evidence of the children actually doing anything or crucially, making progress. Ofsted wouldn't put up with this - evidence in the form of data/marks is key to tracking progress. Ofsted slating immediately on the grounds of "how do you know they have progressed?"
2. In order to gain evidence something needs to be produced by each and every child, and the obvious thing would be something written down by the class. Unless they play an instrument with their foot whilst writing something down (where's Daniel Day Lewis when you need him?). Ofsted want to see music though, so once again Ofsted slating is on its way despite the creation of evidence.

Essentially you can't win, and I know that I'm taking it to the extreme in these cases and ideally you need a mixture of the two, but the point is that the messages from those who "know" are totally mixed and this is the entire problem with teaching at the moment - nobody has a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

I'm kind of getting used to it now.