Signs of rigour
Sir: I warmed to your article paying tribute to my successor as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead (Not exactly teacher's pet', 13 May).
For the record, however, may I correct one point? The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) was never 'anxious to paint a glorious picture of progress in state education'. Ofsted was set up to report independently and truthfully on what is happening in schools, and to bring about improvement through that mechanism.
Consequently, I cannot recognise myself as 'airily' dismissing complaints. I do confess, however, to arguing that Ofsted reports do and did contain rigorous judgments on stan- dards of achievement, and would happily spell this out if the author of the article (one of your associate editors) has ears to hear. For example, for the first time ever it was possible as a result of Ofsted Reports to declare some schools to be failing, and to take appropriate action — surely one sign of `rigour'. I do also confess that from time to time I paid tribute, where appropriate, to the hard and dedicated work of many teachers. Perhaps this is not politically acceptable in your writer's rule book.
Stewart Sutherland
The University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh
Previous page
