How not to run a successful organisation

"If anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low', you know you are doing something right." 
(A quote from Sir Humpty Wilshaw, Ofsted boss, to the Guardian)


Now there are probably a large number of ways to run a school, or any organisation. I venture to suggest that no-one has ever run a successful organisation by reducing staff morale to an all-time low. In fact, anyone who wants to be a successful leader/manager will actually make raising staff morale a high priority. Now if anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low' you know absolutely nothing except that this particular person (probably the staffroom depressive who would say it whatever was actually going on) holds this particular view. But if you learn that a significant number of staff hold this view then you actually know that you are doing something wrong  -  probably a lot of things wrong. 


Oddly enough, up until now at least, Ofsted have been very interested in staff morale and schools have ended up in special measures largely because of the issue of low morale. 


One wonders if Wilshaw has ever been on a leadership or management course and whether, if so, he expressed this stupid view there? Perhaps it's only since he's been a head that he's realised that his job is to lower morale to an all-time low?


In any event, the decision to appoint this clown to such a sensitive job highlights once again the absurd way in which such appointments are made. It's clear that the the kind of recruitment and selection policies that apply to most public bodies are totally absent from some of the most important public appointments, which is one of the reasons why we have had a succession of such dreadful 'leaders' at Ofsted. Sadly, for students, parents and teachers, the job usually seems to go to the person who most publicly represents him/herself as uncritically believing in everything that the party in power believes.


If it wasn't happening at the same time as the disastrous dismantling of our publicly financed locally accountable education system, the new Ofsted regime would, unless Wilshaw were to prematurely implode, be on course to end up as the biggest betrayal of young people since the beginning of state education.

He's at it again

Sir Michael 'Humpty' Wilshaw, attempting to top the claim by the worst ever chief inspector of schools  -  until now  -  that there were 15,000 incompetent teachers in English schools:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9062107/5000-head-teachers-lack-leadership-says-Ofsted-chief.html

Certainly if there really were 5,000 heads who 'lack leadership', this would be a bigger cause for concern than the fact that there were, allegedly, 15,000 incompetent teachers.  However, it's the same old sleight of hand to earn a cheap headline.  In fact only 1% of all heads are, according to Ofsted, 'inadequate' and even if this is an accurate assessment, it is probably the case that heads generally are doing very well in comparison with other professions.  As I never tire of pointing out, not only do these statements attempt to totally turn on its head the dictionary definition of 'satisfactory': 'fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect'  (Oxford definition), but seems also to betray a complete ignorance of Ofsted's own 'satisfactory leadership' definition:


This is the grade descriptor for 'satisfactory leadership' that would have been used for schools inspected before 2012 (the schools Humpty is talking about):

The headteacher and most other key leaders, including the governing body, provide a concerted approach to school improvement. Planned actions by leaders and managers have improved the quality of teaching so that very little is inadequate. Most but not all staff and pupils are fully committed to the drive and ambition demonstrated by key leaders. Capacity to improve is demonstrated by a trend of sustained improvement in achievement, behaviour and safety although a few significant weaknesses remain. 

Is he deliberately attempting to mislead the public?  Or is he just completely out of his depth?

If you're interested, the new schedule (from Jan 2012) has a slightly longer and arguably more comprehensive grade descriptor :

The headteacher and most other key leaders, including the governing body, provide a concerted approach to school improvement. Planned actions by leaders and managers have improved the quality of teaching so that very little is inadequate. Most, but not all, staff and pupils are fully committed to the drive and ambition demonstrated by key leaders. Capacity to improve is demonstrated by a trend of sustained improvement in achievement, behaviour and safety, although a few significant weaknesses remain. Essential systems are embedded sufficiently to enable the school to continue improving and do not depend solely on only one or two senior leaders. The curriculum is generally matched to pupils’ needs, interests and aspirations and provides adequate preparation for the next stage of their lives, whatever their starting points. The school usually works well with parents and carers, although may be less successful in engaging those who might traditionally find working with the school difficult. The school’s arrangements for safeguarding pupils meet statutory requirements and give no cause for concern.


This will  in fact become pretty irrelevant as Humpty has said that the whole category will be scrapped   -  and since chief inspectors have quasi-dictatorial powers, this will happen.