Copying another's work was and is deemed to be unprincipled and unethical in most academic circles.

But not in OFSTED it seems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18353533

It would appear that templated reports are being produced by that body that undermine the efficacy of the content of reports produced for schools. Very specifically the adjudication made by inspectors and moderators in their conclusions in the reports about schools' performance is made questionable by this practice. Particularly when it is alleged that the final arbiter in the writing and approval of the report may never have even have visited the establishment.

But not six-of-the-best and detention all round for OFSTED - no - do not worry parents and staff, we are assured, it was not us what wrote the report but our sub-contractor and it is all their fault.

Is this the tip of a very flawed iceberg ?

This post was last modified: 08-06-2012 11:05 AM by jgdoherty.

It's done all the time in Government departments, however. Once someone has produced a form of words which everyone's happy with, lots of time can be saved by recycling it for use in other, similar, contexts. I don't see why anyone should find that objectionable in principle.

Every rational person would accept that it cannot be argued that it is not unreasonable to recycle templates and forms of words in reports and documents in government and business environments in which issues and processes are narrowly defined. It is efficient to consider the use of this approach where it fits best.

Indeed the UK Civil Service probably could not operate efficiently without its templated approach to the utilisation of communication protocols and standard forms of reports.

However OFSTED has frequently defended itself in terms of denial of the existence of formulaic evaluation schedules and emphatically denies that their approach to assessment and reporting is tick-box based.

OFSTED states that it aspires to regulate and inspect to achieve excellence with a new requirement to reduce the number of key judgements that are required and to further increase the proportion of inspectors’ time in school that is spent observing teaching and gathering evidence of learning, progress and behaviour

So far be it from me to deny anyone’s principles, but the example reported by the BBC is not convincingly adherent to those aspirations.

However all reasonable people will agree that the real value of this level of education can be seen to be a hugely significant part of the on-ramp our children have in preparation for their futures, whether they be academic or otherwise.

Indeed reasonable people would expect every inspector to observe and review accurately the performance of each element of that process of education, using a methodology that in itself is robust and fits the circumstances, whether that be the quality of teaching skills and methods, content of curriculum, adherence to good practice, school philosophy, the achievement of pupils, the quality of leadership and management, the behaviour and safety of pupils and the like. Doubly important that the report adheres to that methodology and what follows is full, accurate and coherent.

And from that vast array of qualities that must be assembled in schools to provide that education, it is clearly evident that they far outstrip anything that may be measured by the perfunctory approach adopted by OFSTED and its sub-contractor as outlined in the BBC’s report.

What people will see as unreasoned is to irrationally strip the assessment process of any real quality in practice and to thereby enable reports to be produced for a minimum cost and to an extent that in real terms the Final Reports are so diminished as to be potentially denuded of any measurable value and specifically cannot meet OFSTED’s self-stated objective of supporting Headteachers and Principals in their work..

All from a point of principle of course.