Ofsted’s Amanda Spielman to speak on “the use of research evidence in education policy and practice”. Where to start?

We are quite low-profile in education, in terms of public awareness of the issues that get us going and the degree to which debate-shapers are held properly to account for their pronouncements, are we not?

These thoughts occurred on learning of what to myself and sources was the staggering title and speaker for an upcoming talk at Oxford University’s Education Department on Monday.

To the uninitiated, of course, these details may seem innocuous. The title of the talk is simply: “The use of research evidence in education policy and practice: a view from the Chief Inspector.” And the speaker? Amanda Spielman, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools.

But they were enough to have a contact exhaling in relief that they would not be able to attend the event “given my blood pressure,” while your correspondent just found his jaw dropping to the floor. Satire, it seems, truly is dead.

The background, of course, is that Ofsted’s own use of research evidence in the past 18 months or so appears, given reporting on this website and elsewhere, not so much a case of “requiring improvement” but needing to be put into special measures.

For several of its “research reviews” of national curriculum subjects, supposedly summing up the evidence on which the inspectorate has based its current approach to inspection, have been criticised not just for cherry-picking from the academic literature to support what seem Ofsted’s pre-existing ideological/political viewpoints, but in some cases seemingly making up evidence entirely.

That was the criticism, for example, of the well-known maths academic Mike Askew – who ironically himself co-authored a review of evidence in the subject for Ofsted in the 1990s. Professor Askew accused the inspectorate of “complete fabrication” in relation to a description, in its mathematics research review, of maths curriculum content as either “declarative, procedural [or] conditional knowledge”. This had as its only reference research which he had co-authored. Yet this research had not used this formulation.

Another maths educator, Professor Mark Boylan of Sheffield Hallam University, spoke to Schools Week about his “astonishment” at seeing his own research cited by Ofsted in the same report to support its claim that homework motivated children. He had not investigated the issue.

Still on the subject of homework, Ofsted’s maths review had highlighted the fact that pupils in England spend less time on it than those in “high-performing” countries overseas – without pointing out that “low-performing” countries also devote more time to homework.

The inspectorate also based a statement on pupils looking forward to tests on a study involving just five pupils (and where it is debatable whether even these children actually faced tests as the term is often understood; they were certainly not high-stakes assessments).

In English, three experienced researchers accused the inspectorate of a “gross misrepresentation” of their work by wrongly quoting their findings in its review of their subject, while “simplifying and distorting” their points.

In modern languages, Ofsted’s questionable interaction with the research base has also come under criticism.

Repeatedly, academics have referred to Ofsted as taking an approach to the use of research which would be frowned upon in an undergraduate essay, if not in school work by pupils.

So the sense of incredulity was that HMCI has been lined up to give this talk and, presumably, does not believe she will be taken to task for Ofsted’s record in this field.

For the inspectorate has faced criticism since summer 2021, when the research reviews first started coming out, over their contents. This has occurred in both the trade press and on social media, as well as this website, with professional organisations including the Association of Mathematics Education Teachers leading the charge.

And yet: here we are. Ofsted clearly does not expect much pushback from its audience, or the media, on this.

It may be possible to envisage Ms Spielman offering some sort of mea culpa, admitting that Ofsted’s own recent interactions with the research base has not been good enough. But it seems more likely that HMCI will simply offer thoughts about how schools and universities, and perhaps policymakers can base what they do more closely on evidence.

HMCI will no doubt point to Ofsted’s research reviews as a development on what has gone on in the past – though in reality critics are likely to say that its former approach of basing its pronouncements largely on findings from the evidence of its own inspections, rather than academic studies, was more solid - and a sign that the inspectorate is engaging with academic evidence.

But many will be of the view that, if you are going to misuse the research base as above, it would have been better not to have gone in for this exercise at all. 

Anyway, Monday will be interesting. Anyone seeking to watch the talk can apply to do so in person or via zoom through Oxford education department’s website.

-Should HMCI have been quite so enthusiastic about a government policy which has attracted a fair degree of controversy since its announcement at the start of the year?

On January 3^rd, The Times reported plans by Rishi Sunak for “compulsory maths until 18 for every schoolchild”.

Ms Spielman tweeted in reply: “This is tremendously good news for our young people, for the prospects for the country and (with the right resources and lead time to build up to it) for our sixth forms and colleges.”

Well, maybe, though there have been plenty of suggestions that realistically England does not have enough maths teachers to make it work.

Whatever your take on that debate, though, it seems reasonable to wonder whether a chief inspector should not be expressing more distance from the government in her pronouncements.

Indeed, as the experienced educationist Peter Lacey put it: “It is unbecoming of an HMCI to publicise a government statement as good (or bad) news. Public approval or disapproval of government policy is not the role of an independent inspectorate.”

For those of us who view institutional independence as a vital part of a healthily-functioning democracy, it was a troubling tweet.