Why Summerhill Causes Wilshaw Chief Inspector of Schools Sleepless Nights

Once Upon a Time There was a Pea - Shhh, The Chief Inspector Cannot Sleep

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools, has discovered a pea not making his mattress uncomfortable but making uneven the playing field for schools during their inspections. This agitation was made by a small international residential school of 75 children. In getting rid of the pea he has closed down one of the most successful inspection processes Ofsted has carried out since 2000.

“Q138 Paul Holmes MP: …. I cannot resist it: Summerhill school, of course, had a long-running battle with Ofsted. We had one Ofsted session in which its pupils were at the back of the Room and were lobbying Ofsted out in the Corridor. The school took you to court and won the case, and it was not closed down, although Ofsted wanted to close it down. Have you moved on from having one particular model whereby you wanted to close Summerhill? 

  Christine Gilbert Chief HMI: Summerhill was before my time. I did hear just this morning that the pupils used to come regularly to this Committee; it was not just once. 

  Chairman: We miss them. At least there were some young people here.

  Miriam Rosen HMI: That was a very long time ago. Summerhill has been reinspected since then, and the school was found to be satisfactory…

  Q139 Paul Holmes MP: Between the two inspections—following one, you said that Summerhill should be closed down, and following the other, you said that it was satisfactory—who changed, Summerhill or Ofsted?"              ‘The Work of Ofsted - Children, Schools and Families Committee,14 MAY 2008’.

Neither changed. Ofsted simply had to inspect the school differently to all other schools. This is Wilshaw’s pea.

The school, since 2000, had an inspection process, agreed by the DfE in court, voted on by Summerhill staff and children, that ensured it was inspected according to the values and philosophy of the school. To make certain this would happen the inspections were monitored by three people, a representative of the DfE, and two experts representing the school, including  Prof Ian Stronach, Co-Director of the Centre for Educational Research and Evaluation Services. They accompanied the inspectors throughout their visits reviewing and feeding into the process.

Wilshaw was irritated, the school had a successful accountable inspection system that no other school in England had, a process that worked. Yet why should this school be the only one to have an inspection process that allowed them to ensure their inspection was fair? Might this cause other schools to ask for the same accountability? This legume could grow into a massive bean stalk, finally addressing the long overdue issue of accountability, openness and fairness in inspections and their outcomes.

Quietly, through two letters, the pea was removed. Wilshaw and the DfE have withdrawn from the court agreement. Their reasons are; the inspectors now understand the school, and it is unfair on other schools that we have our own process. I attacked this in evidence to the Select Committee, Session 2012-13 HC 980 OFSTED Annual Report. I argued that all schools should have the same process. All has been silent.

One hundred years ago in September A.S.Neill, as a village state school headteacher, wrote in his semi-autobiographical novel, ‘A Dominies Log’ some six years before he founded Summerhill:

“I object to my report. I hate to be the victim of a man I can’t reply to, even when he says nice things.” Ironically that right of reply to the inspection, as it happens, has been uniquely won for 12 years and now has been lost by his school, and for now an opportunity lost to all other schools.

Weblink to Michael’s evidence to the Select Committee:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/writev/980/m08.htm