Holiday pay guidance reviewed amid fears colleges could be left out of pocket

The government is reviewing guidance on holiday pay for term-time-only workers after law firms warned a mistake could leave colleges out of pocket.

The non-statutory advice, which comes into effect in April, follows a court ruling in 2022 which means holiday pay for term-time-only workers must be calculated based on the hours they work in a normal week, not pro-rated based on the weeks worked in a year.

An employment appeal tribunal ruled in 2018 that Bedford Girls School music teacher Lesley Brazel was underpaid because of the way her holiday pay was calculated.

Four years later, the Supreme Court quashed an appeal by the school’s parent charity, the Harper Trust.

Previously, Brazel’s holiday pay was based on what she would earn in an average week, multiplied by 5.6, the statutory number of weeks of leave in England.

But the trust changed its approach to pay in 2011, calculating the total number of hours she worked each term, and paid per for 12.07 per cent of that figure.

Confusion over ‘part-year workers’ definition

Government guidance, published in January, focuses on two types of worker affected by the change. Irregular hours workers are those whose paid hours are “wholly or mostly variable”.

Part-year workers, according to the guidance, are those for whom there are periods of at least a week “which they are not required to work and for which they are not paid”.

It gives an example of a worker who is paid “an annualised (flat) salary over 12 months but has periods of time that last more than one week where he is not working”.

He “would not qualify as part-year worker if his contract reflects that there are weeks where he is not working and there are no weeks where he does not receive pay”.

It is this section of the guidance that has caused confusion, law firms said, because it appears to suggest term-time only workers who are paid in 12 instalments throughout the year do not count as part-year workers.

In guidance published on its website, Browne Jacobson said: “Put simply, we think the non-statutory guidance has got this wrong.” 

Colleges could end up paying more

Sarah Linden, senior associate at Browne Jacobson, told FE Week the confusion “could result in education employers providing, and paying, term-time-only [workers] for more statutory holiday than they otherwise need”.

“The non-statutory guidance suggests employers must continue to provide these workers with 5.6 weeks of statutory holiday, rather than being able to make use of the new statutory holiday entitlement calculation that would otherwise effectively pro-rate these workers’ entitlement based on the amount they work.”

But she added that “in practice, it’s a technical issue” and “likely to be of limited impact” for employers that follow the National Joint Council process for support staff pay and conditions.

“This is because TTOs are entitled to a pro-rated share of the full-time contractual holiday entitlement set out in the green book proportionate to their working time.”

The firm said it recommended schools and colleges “consider amending their TTO contracts to make the position clear”.

Government reviewing guidance

Approached with the concerns, a Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said they were “currently reviewing the guidance and will provide an update in due course”.

“Whilst the legislation defining a part-year worker applies to all sectors, we recognise this has a unique impact on those working in education.

Guidance issued by Stone King, another law firm that specialises in education, states that “unhelpfully, [the guidance] gives an example which could be interpreted to indicate that because term-time-only staff are paid in 12-monthly instalments, they would not be considered part-year workers”.

They said the guidance was “wrong”, and that changes to the law “take primacy over the non-statutory guidance”.

They said they were “in contact with the Department for Business and Trade to seek a revision and clarification to the non-statutory guidance”.

But they added that while the guidance left a “small amount of doubt as to calculations for TTO staff… we do not think this should necessitate any action from schools or colleges”.

Term-time-only workers are “likely to fall within the definition of a part-year worker as they tend to have periods of at least a week which they are not required to work and for which they are not paid”.

College lecturer wrongfully sacked over ‘vengeful’ misconduct claims

A former college lecturer has won damages after an employment tribunal ruled he was wrongfully dismissed over “fabricated” allegations of misconduct made by a student seeking “revenge”.

Kirk Wood, a former esports teacher at Halesowen College, has been awarded £3,431.31 after a judge found the college did not fully investigate accusations of inappropriate behaviour and deemed his immediate sacking was unfair.

Wood was fired last March for gross misconduct after a student claimed he breached professional boundaries by asking her out for a drink and “consistently” bringing up his sex life during lessons, amongst other “career-ending” allegations.

Employment judge Robert Childe found that the student raised allegations against the teacher as “revenge” after he reported safeguarding concerns about her being previously sexually assaulted, an incident she didn’t want to get back to her family.

The “contradictory” allegations were brought by the student and her boyfriend, and his two friends, who claimed that Wood disclosed information about his romantic life, that he had been using dating apps Grinder [sic] and Tinder, and was both a 30-year-old virgin and engaged in group sex.

“It is likely [she] was a student who would raise the allegations falsely as revenge for what she perceived to be the claimant interfering in her home life,” the judge said.

The judge ruled that Halesowen College principal Jacqueline Carmen, who was interim deputy principal at the time of the incident, “behaved unreasonably” for taking the claims at “face value” and for not interviewing four staff members who could corroborate Wood’s professional behaviour.

“Jacquie Carmen then took the unilateral decision to dismiss the claimant without conducting a further investigation,” the judge ruled.

College bosses told FE Week they “thoroughly” investigated the student complaint and fired Wood over gross misconduct.

“We have of course noted the judge’s decision,” a statement from the college said.

“Going forward, our priority remains the safety and wellbeing of all students and staff.”

The history

Wood was employed from August 2022 to March 2023 at Halesowen College. He told the college before starting that he had been accused of what he believed to be false allegations at a previous employer, Colmers School & Sixth Form College.

Halesowen College subsequently obtained a reference from the school, which said Wood had faced allegations of safeguarding breaches of gross misconduct.

Wood brought a tribunal case against Colmers school in 2020 over wrongful and constructive dismissal after students alleged to another teacher that he mentioned the dating app Tinder in class, touched the face of a female student, and held a chair over a student’s head.

He resigned before a disciplinary hearing took place at the school. The tribunal case was dismissed in August 2021. The college subsequently employed him as an esports lecturer.

The judge found that Carmen “relied” on the Colmers reference as a reason for firing him.

“[Halesowen College] did not follow a fair process prior to the dismissing [Wood],” the ruling said.

“Similarly, a decision was taken by three of the [college’s] employees tasked with managing the [Wood’s] disciplinary process, on multiple occasions, not to obtain information that he requested which would support his case.”

A spokesperson for Halesowen College said: “Safeguarding is a moral and statutory responsibility which is taken very seriously at Halesowen College. Student and staff concerns are listened to and followed up, in accordance with established college procedures. The welfare of everyone involved is paramount throughout the process.

“In this case, a student made a complaint about the behaviour of a member of staff, which was investigated thoroughly. A disciplinary hearing was convened in accordance with our college procedures and found the staff members’ behaviour did constitute gross misconduct, and the member of staff was dismissed. This employee exercised the right of appeal and an appeal hearing upheld the decision. We have of course noted the judge’s decision.

“Going forward, our priority remains the safety and wellbeing of all students and staff. Everyone needs to know that the college is a safe space to raise concerns and be confident that they will be listened to. We will continue to ensure our safeguarding and disciplinary procedures reflect that.”

Kirk Wood was contacted for comment.

Education sector sounds the alarm over transgender guidance

Sector bodies have sounded the alarm in their responses to a consultation on the government’s controversial transgender guidance, which closed this week.

Concerns included that guidance breaks the law, does not align with safeguarding duties, unhelpfully conflates schools and colleges, conflicts with the responsibility on leaders to act in a student’s best interests and does not help staff deal with practical issues.

Here’s our round up of everything you need to know.

Colleges need legal backing

As revealed by FE Week’s sister title Schools Week, the government’s own lawyers said schools and colleges faced a “high risk” of successful legal challenges if they followed several elements of the guidance.

The NASUWT teachers’ union, in its submission, said trust in the “legality of the draft guidance will remain low” until ministers can “provide more convincing evidence that it reflects the best possible understanding of the legal position”.

As the proposed guidance is non-statutory, NASUWT added it “does not provide protection” from legal cases against those “who believe that their statutory or regulatory rights have been breached”.

NASUWT, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and the school leaders’ union NAHT, also said the guidance does not fully align with equalities legislation and the Keeping Children Safe in Education safeguarding duties that schools and colleges must follow.

Julie McCulloch, ASCL’s director of policy, said if government “cannot provide assurance that schools and colleges will not be leaving themselves open to legal challenge by following this guidance, then the government itself must commit to taking on any legal challenges that arise against schools and colleges.”

Conflation of schools and colleges flawed

The guidance applies to students aged under 18 in further education and sixth-form colleges, as well as schools. However, confusingly, the guidance interchangeably described gender-questioning students in colleges as “students,” “pupils,” and “children”.

It does not apply to independent training providers, even those delivering apprenticeships or study programmes to under-18s.

The University and College Union said the consistent conflation of schools and colleges fails to “take account of the nature of relationship between young person, lecturer and further education college”. 

For example, there is focus on trying to ensure community cohesion throughout the document, including a section on engaging parents. But from an FE college perspective there is a “big difference between school children and young people at college”, UCU warned.

“For a considerable number of reasons the primary relationship at college is between the young person and the people they deal with whilst there, whereas at school there is considerably more interface with parents. The lack of any focus on the experience of young people at college within the document produces a flaw throughout.”

The Association of Colleges agreed. Its submission said: “The structure of the guidance groups schools and colleges together. This is not age appropriate and does not align with the way colleges engage with families, nor with other rights and competencies that 16 to 17-year-olds have in law.

“Some students arrive at college with an established view of their experienced gender identity, so it is inaccurate to frame the guidance as referring to ‘gender questioning children’.”

AoC added that it is “not obvious” why the age of 18 is considered the threshold below which this guidance applies.

In student’s best interests?

Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, said the guidance covered a “sensitive area, and it is important that we get it right so that our young people are safe and well-supported”.

But the body is in talks with the Department for Education about “the relationship of this draft guidance with statutory guidance, most crucially on safeguarding.

“We feel it is important that a child-centred approach based on individual circumstances is put at the centre of decision-making.”

NASUWT added the need for schools and colleges to act in the best interest of young people “underpins some of the most important legal obligations place on them, particularly those related to child protection and safeguarding” – but said the guidance conflicts with those.

The NAHT, which published a summary of its response, added it was a “significant oversight for consideration of the mental health and well-being of children and young people, not to be one of the overarching principles”.

ASCL, in its submission, also highlighted “confusion and concern” around how the guidance applies to youngsters of different ages.

For instance, the union pointed out guidance said requests to transition from primary school pupils “should be treated with greater caution”, but then adds such children “should not have different pronouns” used – which implies “this key aspect of social transitioning should never be permitted”.

AoC added that at times the guidance seems to apply only to schools, but at times to colleges also. The question about uniform in “schools and colleges” is “particularly unclear”, the membership body said.

“The guidance does not recognise the different needs of college students or the different purposes of colleges as institutions – specifically the purpose of preparing students for adult life and working life.”

Doesn’t help with practical issues

Dr Patrick Roach, general secretary of NASUWT, added the guidance “fails to provide effective support on practical issues that schools and colleges may face, including on working with children who have already transitioned with the support of their families”.

Both ASCL and NASUWT highlighted that the guidance does not provide support for children who have already transitioned.Concerns were also raised about the proposed notion of “watchful waiting” in cases where schools and colleges may wish to accommodate “degrees of social transition”.

NASUWT said this would “appear to be of little practical assistance in supporting decision-making”. 

“Specifically, the guidance does not set out what schools and colleges should watch for, nor does it help them to determine a reasonable duration within which they should watch and wait in particular cases.”

ASCL also highlighted the expectation put on schools and colleges to “make decisions before a pupil is permitted to socially transition which, in our view, require clinical expertise”.

Meanwhile on parents, NASUWT added: “The guidance is silent on the most effective ways of working with parents who are supportive of their child’s decisions.”

So what should happen now?

Unions agreed that having guidance was a helpful step.

But the NAHT said it was essential” government “release any legal review they receive on the final guidance, and be explicit throughout the guidance, any areas which may, despite best efforts for clarity, remain legally ambiguous, and which may pose a legal risk to schools and colleges, in order that they can obtain their own legal advice”.

Roach said he wanted the draft guidance withdrawn and replaced with guidance that allowed schools and colleges to “act with confidence in what is a complex and sensitive aspect of their work”. Any revisions should be made after “full consultation” with the sector.

The NAHT added the final guidance must be “focused solely on clarifying operational and practical issues, such as access to single-sex spaces and admissions registers”, which is at the minute lacking.

Guidance should also be accompanied by training, support and resources for schools and colleges.

ASCL acknowledged the guidance was an “important and necessary piece of work on a sensitive, complex and contentious issue”. 

But the union flagged “increasing concern” on a wider issue of “government by expectation”.

“Across a wide range of issues, the government now sets expectations for action by schools and colleges through non-statutory guidance, rather than clarifying and codifying the changes they wish to see in legislation.

“This is creating significant confusion, unhelpfully blurring the lines between what schools and colleges are legally required to do, and what the government of the day would simply like them to do… More clarity on this is required.”

A new chapter in education protection!

The value of an insurance broker

When it comes to protecting your college’s assets and ensuring continuity of operations, having suitable insurance coverage is crucial. By using our experienced insurance brokers to procure insurance, we can provide specialist and professional advice, a range of risk management solutions from the insurance market, guide your organisation through volatile market conditions and help manage claims.

As one of the leading providers of insurance broking and risk management services, Gallagher offers professional advice tailored to suit the specific needs of your college. We understand the unique risks and challenges faced by further education colleges and can provide specialist guidance on suitable insurance solutions.

A broader offering for comprehensive protection

One of the key advantages of Gallagher is the broad range of insurance solutions and specialisms we provide. Gallagher is one of the largest insurance brokers in the world with over 50 offices in the UK, and a presence in over 130 countries. This allows us to utilise the experience and resources globally to be able to support you college at a local level. Gallagher can offer specialist cover of a range of complex insurance offerings such as:

  • Cyber Insurance – we have a team of specialists who understand the unique risks faced by colleges and can provide tailored coverage against data breaches, ransomware attacks and other cyber threats.
  • Risk Management – we go beyond just insurance coverage and offer comprehensive risk management services, our team works closely with colleges to identify potential risks, develop strategies to mitigate these and implement effective risk management programmes.
  • Full Revenue Cover (Business Interruption)

One of the key advantages of Gallagher is that we can arrange innovative approaches to insuring your specific and complex risks, which provides our clients a diverse selection of insurance products and services.

By leveraging their industry expertise and market relationships, we can help colleges navigate the insurance market and secure coverage that meets their specific needs.

In addition, we regularly advise our clients on developing trends that we may see in the education sector which could be relevant. We continuously review new and emerging risks throughout the year and advise on potential exposures to you and suitable risk control measures.

Support on claims and reducing costs

As a broker, we know we can add value in supporting you in an emergency. Our specialist experience in the education sector has meant that we have handled a range of incidents in this sector.

We provide a full claims service to support you through the entirety of any claim you may have, including:

  • 24 hours claims service
  • Appointment of Loss Assessors to help manage any property claims over £5000
  • Specialist fraudulent claims service to better protect your interest.

This claims service works in conjunction with our Risk Management offering and the objective of this is to improve your risk, manage any potential exposures, control premium spends and effectively help to prevent or mitigate claims occurring from the outset.

Familiar service proposition, but with more support

Following the rebrand to Gallagher, FE Protect’s clients continue to be supported with insurance and risk management services by the existing team that know and understand your college, whilst additionally benefiting from Gallagher’s wealth of industry knowledge and insight from its wider team.

To find out more about how Gallagher can support your college visit https://www.ajg.com/uk/education/education-insurance/ or call Karen Banks on 07804042951.

Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered Office: Spectrum Building, 55 Blythswood Street, Glasgow, G2 7AT. Registered in Scotland. Company Number: SC108909.

First London university to get top Ofsted marks

A university in London has secured the highest possible Ofsted rating across the board in its first full inspection.

Brunel University received a glowing report from the watchdog today which found apprentices are taught “highly sought after” skills in healthcare and digital technologies sectors.

There are 78 apprentices studying level 5 to 7 degree apprenticeships who feel “privileged and proud to study at the university” which employs “exceptional lecturers who are experts in their field”.

The university began delivering apprenticeships in 2020. Ofsted recognised how leaders faced “significant challenges” in their first year of offering the skills programmes due to Covid-19-related disruptions mainly in the healthcare sector.

In their first cohort of a small number of nursing associate apprentices, only a few remained on their course and achieved. But leaders took “prompt action and rapidly improved their employer engagement and student support interventions to make sure that apprentices received effective and timely support both on their course and in the workplace”.

Retention of apprentices and their achievement rates then improved “significantly” from the previous year and the “vast majority of apprentices stay on their programmes and are making excellent progress”.

Brunel becomes the only university in London and the south of England to achieve ‘outstanding’, and one of only four across the country to receive the highest Ofsted inspection grade.

Professor Andrew Jones, Brunel’s vice-chancellor and president, said Ofsted’s report was an “impressive independent assessment of the excellent work by our teaching and support teams, and of the amazing achievements of our apprentices”.

“It demonstrates our commitment to the needs of business, industry and the professions by delivering the highest quality of education and training to meet their skills needs,” he added.

Inspectors found that “staff provide effective support to apprentices with additional learning needs throughout their training” while apprentices display “exemplary” professional behaviours throughout their training and in the workplace.

The inspectors added that employers make sure that apprentices have access to high-quality on-the-job training and support in the workplace, and that staff work efficiently with employers to ensure that apprentices make exceptional progress.

The vast majority of apprentices sustain their employment and gain additional responsibilities or promotion at the end of their apprenticeships.

Raj Kakaiya, head of apprenticeships at Brunel, said: “Our apprenticeships aim to address some of the biggest skills gaps in the UK, such as those outlined in the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. We know that our apprentices are having precisely the impact we’ve readied them for, developing clinical services, improving patient outcomes, enriching the NHS’s data analytics capability and even making airport operations more efficient.

“We deliver purpose-driven apprenticeships, and our apprentices benefit from transformational career development.”

East Sussex sixth form college upgraded to ‘outstanding’

A sixth form college in East Sussex that teaches over 2,250 students has been upgraded to ‘outstanding’ following its latest Ofsted inspection.

Bexhill College was awarded grade one marks across all areas apart from its adult learning programme, which was deemed ‘good’.

Inspectors examined Bexhill between January 23 and 26 and found “highly motivated” students and a “consistently high” standard of teaching across the college.

The sixth form college had 2,200 students aged 16 to 19 enrolled at the time of inspection studying level 3 programmes as well as 59 adult students and 16 students in receipt of high-needs funding.

The ‘outstanding’ award is an improvement from its last full inspection in 2010, where it was graded ‘good’. The college since had two short inspections in 2015 and 2019, both of which were grade two.

Principal Karen Hucker said: “To be recognised as ‘outstanding’ is an extremely significant achievement and the result of years of hard work, determination, and dedication from all staff.

“I am absolutely delighted for all the students, staff, and everyone connected with the college.”

During the full inspection, inspectors praised leaders’ use of their “detailed” knowledge of the provision to provide development activities that improved teaching practice, which was shared amongst colleagues.

For example, science teachers shared their knowledge of using online polling software to gauge students’ opinions with colleagues in the English department. 

“As a result, the standard of teaching is consistently high across the college,” the report said.

The quality of education was also found to be “consistently high” after the watchdog found leaders’ quick solutions to issues at the college.

Leaders had recognised that too many students were not completing their programme successfully and executed “sensible actions” to retain more students. 

Hucker added: “This report is recognition of that and is something that not just the college, but the town of Bexhill and the surrounding area can be proud of.”

“We strive to provide the highest standard of education possible in a college that welcomes, encourages, and embraces its students,” she said.

The report also found that the college makes a strong contribution to meeting skills needs through liaising with employers and integrating stakeholders into the curriculum.

SEND college considers closure after ‘wrong’ Ofsted result

A SEND college is facing potential closure after a second ‘inadequate’ grade from Ofsted, as leaders accuse the watchdog of unprofessional conduct and a “wrong” judgment.

Leighton Education Project is a small college in Kentish Town, London that teaches less than 20 young people with learning disabilities run by charity Elfrida Rathbone Camden.

The college was downgraded from ‘good’ to ‘inadequate’ in June 2022 due to concerns about safeguarding, medical training of staff and its curriculum.

Following a re-inspection in November 2023, the education watchdog said students were still “making slow progress” because the curriculum did not meet their individual needs.

In a statement understood to have been sent to parents and stakeholders, Elfrida Rathbone Camden said Leighton Education Project, which has been teaching young adults with special educational needs like autism since 1983,  was “very disappointed” and is considering whether to close in July this year.

The statement said: “What this second inadequate means for the college and our learners is not yet clear. There will be implications for our funding and the number of learners that will be placed at the college in future.”

This adds to existing “financial pressures” stemming from the college’s falling student numbers.

As a result, a final decision on whether to continue operating in the next school year will be made by March.

Management complained that the college should have been graded as ‘requires improvement’ after “working tirelessly” to improve the curriculum after the last inspection.

In a message shared with FE Week, management said: “We submitted a formal complaint to Ofsted explaining why we felt our grading was wrong and also detailing unprofessional conduct by the inspection team during the inspection.”

However, after an internal investigation, the education watchdog rejected the complaint and published its inspection report today.

FE Week understands that the college felt it did not have enough time to improve its curriculum between the June 2022 inspection and November this year.

In 2023, Ofsted inspectors attended the college at three points for monitoring visits and a final re-inspection.

Reports show that the watchdog recognised that the college had resolved the safeguarding issue – which partly related to having a secure entrance – and had “worked hard” to improve the quality of its curriculum.

But inspectors found that despite the college drafting in “external expertise” to advise on teaching improvements, tutors failed to assess students’ prior knowledge so could not plan a sufficiently “ambitious” core curriculum.

The inspection report said: “They assess all learners on the same topics regardless of their prior learning and how many years they have been at the college.

“Consequently, tutors do not have a good enough overview of what learners know and can do at the start of programmes.”

Other concerns included tutors not being “sufficiently qualified” and not thoroughly checking whether students understand what they are learning.

Cyber attacks: Exam boards told to introduce new security measures

Exams regulator Ofqual has asked exam boards to introduce new security measures, its chief regulator has said. 

It follows police investigations being launched after cyber attacks at three exam boards last summer. 

Sir Ian Bauckham, Ofqual chief regulator, said “clearly examinations cannot be fair if some people get access to secure examination materials beforehand”.

He said it was “critically important” that the sector focused on “maintaining the security of the IT systems that are used to hold and communicate important examination materials”. 

“I know that all of you, if you’re running schools or trusts or colleges, will be very focused on the security of your own systems as well as the resilience of those systems under pressure.

“We’ve asked exam boards to introduce additional security measures this year, including multi-factor authentication for accessing exam sites to make sure that those are only accessed by people who are authorised to access them.”

He recognised this could be “a bit annoying” when you’re “working under pressure and add a few minutes of extra time”. 

But he added: “I think all of us would understand that is an important process to go through to ensure that these materials are secure”. 

Police investigating the cyber attack at AQA said there were “no further positive lines of enquiry” to pursue. 

A separate investigation by Cambridgeshire Police into cyber attacks at exam boards OCR and Pearson is continuing. A 16-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of theft, fraud and computer misuse. He has been released under investigation.

‘Rigorous checks’ on digital exams

All exam boards have set timelines to move towards on-screen examinations. But AQA announced this week that it has delayed its plans to “get this right and maintain public confidence in our exam system”. Ofqual has to approve the plans. 

Bauckham said the regulator will make “rigorous checks” to make sure they are fair and the stability to make sure “systems are not going to be at risk of falling over and messing up examinations”. 

He pointed to the Oxford University admissions test, where candidates were unable to sit entrance tests properly after problems with the online assessment, The Times reported.

“Lo and behold schools were beset with freezing screens and impossible log-ins and refusals to move onto the next question,” Bauckham said. “In fact the whole thing had to be abandoned.” 

“We cannot afford either a large-scale failure nor can we afford to have innovations in assessment which accidentally introduce unfairness. 

He added: “You only get one chance when you’re 16 taking your GCSEs. Failures in IT systems are not going to be acceptable as an excuse for your child’s GCSEs being messed up.” 

Asked by Schools Week how long the approval process would take, Bauckham said they “can’t be certain” at the moment but they are going to “make absolutely sure that we don’t take any risks with any of those areas.” 

Sir Martyn Oliver’s first big Ofsted speech: in full

Ofsted chief Sir Martyn Oliver has given his first keynote speech today, launching a new Big Listen consultation and declaring he wants to turn the watchdog into a “world-class inspectorate”.

In his speech to ASCL conference in Liverpool, Oliver added the watchdog “understands” the current difficulties facing school and college leaders, saying he will “do more to recognise the challenging circumstances you face”.

Sir Martyn Oliver’s first Ofsted speech: in full

Hello! Thank you for that welcome.

Thank you for the invitation, and for the many constructive meetings I’ve had with ASCL colleagues in my first couple of months.

I met with Geoff, thanks Geoff, on my fourth day in post, and I’m looking forward to working with Pepe when you take on the mantle next month.

I’m delighted to be here, speaking to you, the leaders of this country’s great schools and colleges.

I feel very comfortable here with you, because we share so many of the same experiences.

I’ve been a teacher; a head; a multi-academy trust leader; and a member of ASCL for nearly two decades before I took on this new role.

And now I stand in front of you for the first time as His Majesty’s Chief Inspector at Ofsted.

I lead an organisation that is, at every level, a reflection of the sectors we inspect and regulate. The teams I now lead are drawn from schools, from further education, from early years, from social care. I have colleagues inspecting the training of military recruits who have served time in the armed forces. I have others inspecting prison education who have worked (I said ‘worked’!) in prisons.

That experience and insight is so important. So important. It’s what gives us credibility. Credibility with you. And credibility when we talk to those in power.

And it’s what gives us the right to inform parents about the services their children are getting.

Because that’s the other side of the coin: we are of the system, but we exist – as you exist – for children, for learners and, of course, for parents and carers.

Challenges

Ours is – or it really should be – a joint enterprise. We talk about raising standards and improving lives – but in truth, our role is to help you do that.

Ofsted does not educate children. You do.

You’re the ones out there every day, educating, inspiring, and shaping the lives of children and learners. I promise you that I’ll never forget that.

I worked in schools for 29 years. Many of them were schools in very difficult situations which needed help.

These schools were often described as being in “challenging circumstances.”

But that phrase begs the question of what circumstances other schools are facing.

I don’t think anyone working in our sector would say their circumstances aren’t “challenging.”

After all, we’re all struggling to various degrees:

  • with the legacies of COVID
  • with cost-of living difficulties
  • with the intertwined problems of attendance and behaviour
  • with increasing demand for mental health and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities services
  • And with a stubborn and stark gap in the performance of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children

And of course, looking at other areas we inspect and regulate, we see rising demand for childcare, for alternative provision, for support services and for safe and nurturing children’s homes.

It’s hard to see what you call that other than “challenging.”

But, whilst these are real challenges, there are also reasons to be optimistic. Ours is a great and noble profession full of people, like you, who care deeply about children. Passionate professionals who want the best and can see the impact on individuals when we, as a system, cannot deliver this, for whatever reasons. This makes it difficult. I understand that. But I also understand that the best of you take on your leadership roles not because it is easy, but because it is hard. You want to make a difference, especially to those who are most disadvantaged and vulnerable, and so do I.

So, I want to reassure you that I get it. And that Ofsted gets it.

Why I joined Ofsted

It’s that challenge that brought me to this job. I didn’t apply for it to maintain “business as usual.” I want to meet these challenging times head-on and I want to improve and change the way Ofsted goes about its work.

My ambition is for Ofsted to be a modern, world-class inspectorate and regulator – fit for purpose and also trusted by parents, by children and by you, the sectors we work with. I will need your help in doing this.

I want us to be the best, because children deserve the best.

And because we share the highest expectations for all children – especially the most disadvantaged. They deserve that from us.

I want us all to challenge the so-called soft bigotry of low expectations wherever we find them. Low expectations are pernicious, they are malignant, and they are just plain wrong.

We want to see high standards for all children, and positive outcomes for all children. This is how we start to tackle disadvantage as a society, by opening new doors, creating new opportunities and better life chances.

That’s why, we will of course continue to call out providers when they aren’t meeting the needs of children and parents. Children only get one childhood. None of us want to see their potential limited because of where they were born – or their future mapped out based on their background.

But that doesn’t mean that we can ignore context. I know we can do more to recognise the challenging circumstances you face. To look at the bigger picture and the context in which you’re working.

We can be better at focusing on the things you are and should be doing. The areas where you can add value and make a difference.

But no single school can do it all. I know you all want to do everything you can for the children and communities you serve, but you cannot do it alone. And we don’t expect you to.

And I know only too well that being a teacher, or a lecturer in a college, is a difficult enough job on its own. And so is being a social worker, or an educational psychologist, or any of the other roles in our sector. We shouldn’t expect teachers to try to combine these roles – it just isn’t fair to them, and it isn’t fair to children and learners.

So, I want Ofsted to be better at understanding the decisions you make, in the context you are working in. Understanding why you made those decisions and the difference that they made for your children.

And when we find problems that you can’t control, I want us to do more to follow the thread and hold the right people to account.

Ofsted’s position

Because Ofsted has a unique position overseeing almost all of the services that affect a child’s life, especially a most vulnerable or disadvantaged child:

  • their childminder or nursery
  • if they need help from social services
  • their primary and secondary school
  • if they go on to a college or an apprenticeship
  • if they access SEND support
  • if they’re referred to alternative or specialist provision
  • if they need help from mental health services

And of course, we inspect their local authority, and report to the government and parliament along the way.

So, we have the ability to pull the threads across services and follow where they lead, and I want us to do it more. Because we know that good education and care isn’t the work of one institution – it’s down to all the influences on a young life.

And so, seeing that bigger picture is vital. It’s one of my biggest priorities for Ofsted over the next 5 years.

It means we can see how a child moves between these services, or if they fall through the gaps.

It means we can better understand the difficult decisions you make, particularly where your options are restricted.

And it means we can draw policy makers’ attention to significant gaps, postcode lotteries, where services are not joined up, and where things just aren’t good enough.

Ofsted holds a unique position, and we use it to provide these insights and help to link the whole system together.

Disadvantaged and most vulnerable children

Because I want Ofsted to be a champion for children. Helping you to attain high standards, and improvement through the dissemination of best practice.

And I want us to do that for all children. Especially the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. That’s my other big priority.

We want the right opportunities and the best chances for every child from South Shields to Southampton, from Canterbury to Carlisle, and from Lands End to Lowestoft.

We don’t want disadvantage or vulnerability to be a barrier. Because if you get it right for the most disadvantaged, you get it right for everyone.

Ofsted has a crucial role to play in making sure that happens, and pointing out when it doesn’t.

My first two months

So I have set out a path for Ofsted. And I have set out two big priorities for my tenure. To fully utilise our position, and make the most of our insights. And to make sure our focus is always on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable.

These are big ambitions, and not things that can be achieved overnight. But I hope the steps I’ve taken in my first two months show you that I’m serious.

Serious about Ofsted doing better. Serious about making a difference. And serious about working with the sector to make sure all children have the best possible education, care, and life chances.

On my very first day I announced three things:

  1. an immediate package of training for inspectors on mental health awareness
  2. a full response to the Coroner’s inquest into the tragic death of Ruth Perry
  3. a Big Listen exercise to hear from everyone we work with and for

And I have delivered on those three things.

  1. Every lead inspector has already completed the training package, with support from Mental Health First Aid England. And every inspector used will have completed it by the end of this month.
  • We have published our full response to the Coroner following her inquest into Ruth’s death. We accepted her findings and responded to every single recommendation. Ruth’s death was a tragedy and I am determined to do everything I can to prevent such tragedies happening in the future. It should never happen again, and no one should feel as Ruth did.
  • And today we are formally launching our Big Listen.

Other activity

As well as delivering on those three promises:

  • we have introduced a new policy on pausing an inspection
  • we have made clarifications to our handbooks including setting out how leaders can raise concerns during an inspection, who can attend inspection meetings, and the sharing of provisional outcomes
  • we will shortly be publishing our response to the Education Select Committee’s recent report into our work

And another small change that we are working on, is to make changes to our website to show the full range of component grades at a glance, not just the overall effectiveness grade.

This neither promises nor precludes further changes to our gradings, but I hope it shows that we are listening. That we have heard the views of you, the ASCL members. And that we are acting.

You are clear that all the sub-judgements that Ofsted makes about your schools matter and all should be seen. And it should be about much more than just the overall grade.

By showing the full range of judgements, we hope that parents will be better able to compare providers.

Better able to see a more rounded, contextual picture that speaks to what they care about: behaviour and attitudes to learning, quality of education, their child’s personal development and the way the school or college is run.

So, hopefully you can see, that we will always listen to your views and the views of all the sectors we inspect and regulate.

Of course, the views of children and parents must always come first. They are our highest priority, as I know they are yours too.

And I hope that we can bring together the views of professionals with the views of parents to plot an improvement journey that meets everyone’s needs.

Big Listen

And that leads me nicely back to the Big Listen.

The Big Listen is just that, a big, comprehensive effort to listen to everyone we work with and everyone we work for.

And we want to hear from as many people as possible. From parents and from providers. From children and from commissioners. From educators, and from carers. And from representative groups.

We want to hear from those providing services, those commissioning them, those arranging them, those receiving them, and those impacted by them.

We want to hear from ASCL and all the other representative bodies as well as all of you, as individual teachers, practitioners, and leaders.

And we want to hear from everyone working in our other sectors. Everyone in social care, early years, further education, SEND provision, prison education, teacher development, and local authorities.

As well as the professionals we work with, we want to hear from the people we work for – parents, carers and their children.

So, if your work, your children, your decisions, your education, or your care are impacted by what we do, we want to hear from you.

But please, this is just the beginning. The Big Listen is how we will learn the lessons we need to learn. And how we will improve. But it will not end with listening. The Big Listen will be followed by real action. You can already see action being taken, but I know we have more to do.

Improvement

Ofsted is an organisation filled with talented and committed people. People who have come from schools, colleges, nurseries and local authorities. I think they do a crucial job, and in most instances, they do it very, very well.

And I often hear that same feedback from you. I don’t think the minority who just want to see the back of inspection represent the people in this hall. I think the vast majority of leaders agree with accountability and recognise the importance of inspection.

But I know many of you – perhaps most of you – think Ofsted can be better.

And I agree. We can be better. I have big ambitions for the organisation, and for the impact it can have.

And to deliver on that ambition, we need to listen. We need to listen to feedback. To criticism. To ideas for small changes and for big reforms.

So please help us. And please encourage others to as well. Your colleagues and contacts, as well as the parents at your school or college.

We’re casting the net as widely as we can.

We have commissioned two external organisations to undertake surveys and focus groups with parents and professionals on our behalf – presenting us with a fully impartial take on what they hear.

And, we will also gather views directly at the many events and meetings that our staff attend.

And we will conduct an open online consultation, asking questions and inviting comments.

You can find more information here.

As I’ve said, we are also determined to gather a wide range of children’s views – including from children who are in the care of social services. We’ll have more to say about that in a couple of weeks’ time.

We work in their interests, so we will listen to what they have to say too.

Every voice will be heard, and nothing, NOTHING, is off the table.

Rebuilding relationships

So, the Big Listen is about us doing better. But I also want it to mark a new chapter in our relationship with those we inspect and regulate.

I said, when I announced it on my first day, that I wanted a “fresh start.”

I want to earn and rebuild your confidence in Ofsted. And the confidence of parents and children too.

I know you may not like every decision we make, but I hope you’ll see that we’re doing everything we can, within our constraints, to work with you.

It’s obviously still early days, and I know we still have a long way to go, but I hope our approach is starting to make a difference. I have seen comments from teachers who have been inspected this year describing inspections as understanding, courteous and positive. But I’m not complacent – I want to make sure that is everyone’s experience, and will do all I can to make that happen.

In particular, we want inspection to feel like it is done with you, not to you. I’ve been on the receiving end of quite a few inspections myself, and I know they can be challenging. Rightly so.

But I want you to have the confidence that inspection will be built around a respectful professional dialogue, and that we all have the same aim: the best outcomes for children.

I want you to be confident that you have the autonomy to innovate and make the decisions that deliver those outcomes for your children.

I have been clear with my teams that they must go about their work with professionalism, empathy, courtesy and respect.

And I hope, in turn, our inspectors will be received with the same. I want to calm any tensions and reduce any friction that has built up in recent months. And I know doing this will help with one of my stated ambitions – right back at the education select committee before I took up this role – I want to involve more serving practitioners, and school and college leaders in inspection.

I want to make sure we recruit inspectors who represent the best of the sectors they inspect.

People with the expertise, understanding, and empathy to make the difficult judgements, as well as to praise innovation and outstanding practice.

And who are able to interrogate and report on the things parents really care about.

In short, I want inspections of the sector, by the sector, for children and their parents.

Conclusion

Because, just like all of you, everything, everything, we do is for children.

So please get involved with our Big Listen – and help us to work better with you – in their interests.

Because we work with incredible people. Throughout my career, I’ve had the privilege to meet and work with some of the most generous, hardworking, dedicated, and passionate people. With fantastic teachers and leaders, carers and social workers, childminders and nursery staff, specialists and advisers, and all the other people who dedicate their lives to children’s education and care.

So, it’s only right that, as the inspectorate and regulator for these sectors, we reflect that excellence and live up to the standards you set.

Thank you.