Sink or Swim? The Ofsted ‘Deep Dive’

The day:

It was a Monday morning, and I’d just finished putting the last full stop on the rationale document before sending it to be put on school website. Some schemes of work had already been planned, and sequenced, and were being taught, but some years certainly were not. Then the email came through to inform me that Ofsted had called and my department had been chosen for a ‘Deep Dive’. I was surprisingly calm and actually, once the adrenaline had kicked in, I found the whole experience to be extremely beneficial: beneficial to my individual practice, the department and for our students. As the day went by, I sent out some potential questions Ofsted could ask my staff, so that they could answer with confidence and also to calm the atmosphere and panic that ultimately cannot be entirely prevented. Questions such as: what do you teach in your curriculum and why?; how do you know your curriculum has the right amount of challenge in it?; were you consulted in curriculum changes?; why are you teaching this topic at this point in the year?; can you confirm you are planning and preparing to move to a 3-year KS3? I also put together a file of all of the departmental documentation including recent data headlines, rationale, topic and long-term learning journeys and learning principles. It was great to have this to refer to in the initial meeting with the Inspector.

In the morning of the ‘Deep Dive’ I was provided with an outline of how the day would go. Firstly, I met with the Ofsted Inspector to discuss the rationale. She asked me about data headlines (however, there was no other mention of data throughout the day at all), challenge in the curriculum, text choices, how our curriculum links and how knowledge is retained, recent changes we had made and what I would expect her to see in practice during the visits to teaching sessions. It was helpful to be really honest here, and although we were moving to addressing the new framework, we certainly weren’t in a position where I could say this had been fully achieved – after all, I had just dotted the last sentence of the rationale that very morning! She was pleased to hear about the pedagogy underpinning our rationale and she referred to this multiple times throughout the day.

Following this, we began what I would describe as an awkward, and at first, silent meander along the corridors of my department. I had printed off the lessons my staff were teaching in each period of the day, which was helpful when the Inspector asked about certain year groups and what they would be learning (in alignment with the rationale I had laid out in the meeting). In lessons, where appropriate, the Inspector spoke with students about the ‘bigger picture’ of their learning and assessed their understanding of the knowledge being delivered. Note: Inspectors aren’t necessarily subject specialists, so some of these conversations were interesting to listen to! She also watched how I was reacting and made notes on a proforma on her laptop. She visited four teaching sessions in total and covered most year groups. From two of the classes, one KS3 and one KS4, she selected students from the provided seating plans (I’d asked my staff to prepare these the night before – if they weren’t up-to-date already) for their books for a work analysis. After each session, she asked a variety of questions including:

• How good is the learning taking place?
• Where does the learning fit into the rationale?
• Were ALL students challenged?
• How was questioning used to motivate/engage learners?
• How does educational theory support what was seen in lessons?
• Is the curriculum underpinned by a thoughtful evidence base?

Being someone who, how shall I say, isn’t meek and mild, I did challenge her comments about what she saw. I defended in certain instances and it was really refreshing to have the opportunity to debate practice. I’d certainly recommend this – if anything, it only shows passion. I guess there is a certain balancing act to be had – one does not want to come across as arrogant, either.

After the teaching session visits, there was time for me to take a breather and return to the departmental office. Here, some of the department had gathered and I shared the information/feedback I’d been verbally given so far. I also kept in touch with the Vice Principal at various points in the day – it’s fair to say I think SLT felt a little redundant for large amounts of the day as all of the time was spent with Heads of Department chosen for the underwater exploration. SLT were a little like fishing boats, waiting to support and rescue you in case your oxygen tank ran out! I was really transparent with staff all day about how I was finding it, and I think this really helped to maintain a composed atmosphere.

After lunch, the work analysis commenced. This was entirely led by me – I just offered a way of doing it and she seemed really pleased with this. We turned to the same page where there was evidence of extended writing (she was looking for this) and compared genders/PP/Non-PP/SEN and a range of prior attainment levels. She was really interested in the following:

• Look at the students” work. Is it complete? Is it of a good quality? Where appropriate is there evidence of extended writing? Does it align to the curriculum rationale?
• Do they understand the tasks? How well does the work fit into the bigger picture of what they have been asked to do? Has any learning been revisited from previous lessons – how has this helped?
• Does feedback lead to students progressing? Is there evidence of redrafting and improvement?

It was lovely to hear that our books were some of the best she had seen – I felt very proud at this point. I think I almost skipped out of the office!

Students from the lessons were selected for a student voice panel and were asked a variety of questions about their general experience of learning. Again, a little like myself, our students can be very vocal and it did feel a little like I was climbing out of the ocean with a feeling of dread as I left them bobbing alone in the Inspector’s presence – I wasn’t required to stay for the discussion. They did sing our praises but were honest where they needed to be.

And that was it. Job done. I waited on tender hooks until 5:30pm where SLT gathered staff in the general staffroom and gave the proposed verdict of the inspection. We remained a good school and, I’m not going to lie, I burst into tears with relief – I think a day of open water swimming had exhausted me emotionally.

The new framework, in my opinion, offers Heads of Department the opportunity to be creative, outward facing, innovative and inclusive. It puts knowledge at the heart of its goal and surely that’s why we teach? To equip our future generations with the breadth, and depth, of knowledge and experience so that they can make informed choices about the next steps of their lives.

It was, in the grand scheme of things, a ‘dip in the ocean’. But at the time, I was fully submerged. I’ve come out of the other side of all of this a lot more confident, a lot more open-minded, a lot more transparent and honest and ready to continue to embed our planned improvements collaboratively alongside my amazing department.