6 ms·

Ofsted inspectors 'make up evidence' about a school's performance when IT fails

DicIfTEx 3y ago
For context, Ofsted is the much-maligned government inspectorate of schools in England. They are currently under increased scrutiny following an inquest into the suicide of a headteacher following an inspection that concluded at the end of last year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943 https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943
- oogali 3y ago
  I hope people think more about cases like this and the Post Office when they go to say “it’s not like we’re curing cancer” or “my bad code isn’t a matter of life or death”. You might be far removed from the implications of doing a poor job but that doesn’t mean everyone else is.
  - tailspin2019 3y ago
    While I do agree in principle, I think it's also the case that "the software" has been used as a convenient scapegoat and cover for what were incredibly poor practices and dishonest, irresponsible conduct. The fact that software is involved is in some ways a side issue - and while I do agree we as techies do need to consider the responsibility that we have, I'm equally frustrated how the narrative in the Post Office case has been deliberately shifted towards "it was because the software had bugs" as opposed to "multiple people in charge were deliberately deceitful and behaved completely reprehensibly". This is borne out by the UK government's attempted shift of all the responsibility on to Fujitsu in the Post Office case (who are absolutely not blameless) while trying to push attention away from the Post Office's - and by extension the government's - own considerable culpability. I'm sure they'll seek to do the same in this Ofsted situation.
    - adroniser 3y ago
      Absolutely. As far as I know both Fujitsu and the Post Office were aware of the bugs in the system, and deliberately covered them up.
    - graemep 3y ago
      and the government were told the system was likely to be unreliable before they even bought it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mulgan-horizon-post-office-tony-blair-fujitsu/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mu... The whole thing was a shambles and there was no scrutiny from the start.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        Postmasters were literally calling Fujitsu support and telling them that they can see the software is literally wrong(giving explicit examples of depositing £100 and the software showing that there should be £200 in the till) and literally nothing was done about it.
    - oogali 3y ago
      The scapegoating happens because the software is the one "tangible" thing in the chain of blame. It's the one thing that can't be queried and reply with "if I had known...". I do agree with you that Ofsted will likely use the same deflection tactics. It is a failure of all of the humans involved. Whether it is inadequate acceptance testing, prematurely closed bug reports, optimizing for [unreasonable] timelines, or lack of oversight (and to be clear, I am not advocating for micromanagement). I feel both of these statements are true: 1) certain people bear more fault than others and 2) developers aren't blameless. I would like us to reduce our "blame surface area" with a reasonable amount of effort over what we _can_ control.
    - PaulRobinson 3y ago
      I get it, but I have to disagree on two ground. Firstly, in UK law there is an implicit assumption that computers are "reliable". This means that the burden of proof is on the accused proving the software has bugs, rather than them being presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty". In the Ofsted case, given that schools can be put into special measures, teachers and headteachers fired, and in one case a headteacher killed herself because of the data collected and decision made on it, if those systems are not reliable they are not fit for purpose, because it turns the innocent into victims in terms of criminal, and civil employment law. There have been calls for this assumption to be changed [1], but right now: if you are innocent but a piece of software says you are guilty, in the UK the burden of proof falls to you, regardless of how awful the people, their processes and conduct are on the other side. Secondly, there's a deeper moral issue here. Engineers are arguably aiding and abetting. It is almost certainly the case that engineers working on Horizon and Ofsted systems did not tell all the truth all the time at the bequest of their managers and other colleagues throughout all this. "Just doing my job", is the excuse of the scoundrel. I do not buy it. If you're complicit with despicable people, you're complicit. End of. Yes, UK HMG has answers to give, culpability and responsibility, but let's not pretend that engineers built terrible systems, didn't have to face any consequences, and were enabled by arse covering exercises further up the chain. We can - and must - do better than this. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-o...
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    While it's obviously better for bugs to not happen, the issue here is that both Ofsted and the Post Office covered up the existence of the bugs, lied about it and didn't fix them. If they'd been like "oh, a bug. We'll fix it" then there would be no issue.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    In this case, Ofsted are playing the role of the Post Office prosecutors making career-limiting decisions based on inadequate or forged evidence.
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    The code is usually a reflection of the organisation, not the individual. So while we should all try to write as few bugs as possible a poorly run team can cause at least as many software defects as poor individuals.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    budgets are a value statement. just cause you're an ant here doesn't make you ethically culpable.
  - iovrthoughtthis 3y ago
    this isn't individual devs fault this is bad practice by service integrators
- vdaea 3y ago
  What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Also what does software have to do with that case?
  - lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
    > What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Are you suggesting this is a binary decision, where the only options is choosing "more oversight" or "less oversight"?
    - vdaea 3y ago
      The status quo is "the same amount of oversight". And this article seems to say that since a teacher killed herself for getting "bad grades" then we should have less oversight.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        I believe the point the parent was making is that this isn't a single axes. There are a variety of different types of oversight that can be done on different aspects of schooling.
      - ck425 3y ago
        It's not saying that. It's saying that the current oversight is highly flawed and urgently needs changed. You're falsely equating qualitative change to quantitive change.
      - edstock 3y ago
        How about "better oversight", "constructive oversight" or "beneficial oversight"? Let's not fall into a trap by restricting the space to a single dimension of quantity.
      - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
        This is such a simplistic conclusion to draw that I can’t help but see it as intentionally dishonest. Oversight is not a knob that you turn up or down. I speak as someone with experience in this field when I say that education like a lot of other things is complex enough that “overnight”, especially with output suitable for public consumption, is far from trivial to deliver. Again, I don’t think that you’re arguing in good faith.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Both the Post-Office/Horizon and OFSTED scandals involve blind deference to unfit technology that have led to deaths. We have been covering these on cybershow.uk with three hour long episodes in the pipeline for release soon. If any HN readers are in the UK and worked for Post Office, OFSTED or at a school and want to contribute insights do please get in touch.
- gadders 3y ago
  >>much maligned Yes, by teachers and their unions. Parents generally like it and choose schools based on its ratings which are generally credible.
  - blowski 3y ago
    Liked by parents before their kids get into the school, often detested after publishing a report that doesn’t match their own experience. I’ve personally seen them make weird recommendations that damaged the school.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Until it hits close to home and people know better. For instance, in the case of that headteacher, I personally know that her school was one of the most highly regarded, with the best results, in town. The headteacher even acted as a consultant to other schools and had been at that school for about 15 years. Then one day, and one day only, Ofsted comes and decrees that the school is OK but that the "leadership" is poor, with tragic consequences. The outpouring of support from parents was huge and anger towards Ofsted very real.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Parents on their first kid have no idea what dealing with a school system really is like. They do on the second kid, but who goes there these days. And even on the second, you may want to use the same school as the first's because you can't afford to drive kids to 2 different schools every morning. Edit: to make it more clear, parents may seem to like this ofsted thing at a point when they don't have any other source and they don't know better.
  - afandian 3y ago
    Do they? As a parent I consider OFSTED a low quality signal. If you’re reducing a school to a single word, I don’t think you’re taking the job very seriously. I wonder how others feel.
    - gadders 3y ago
      You'd chose an "inadequate" school over an "outstanding" one? Do carry on putting your politics over your children's future.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  > The coroner said even when she attended hospital feeling suicidal, Mrs Perry felt she couldn't discuss the report with mental health professionals. Holy shit, how did THAT happen ?!?
  - afandian 3y ago
    > Two key sources of stress for Ruth Perry, according to the evidence, were the long wait for the report to be published, and the strict confidentiality warning that came with the draft report. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639943 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639943
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      Yes, I did read that, but what happened to patient-doctor confidentiality, it's not like her name was Edward Snowden ?!? I really wonder what was in that handbook...
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > Holy shit, how did THAT happen ?!? Because OFSTED have been hounding critics, compiling blacklists, sabotaging careers and attempting to have conference speakers critical of them deplatformed. I'll have a dig and see if I can come back with some reference on that. best I can find for now [0] EDIT: added link [0] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/30/revealed-uk-government-keeping-files-on-education-critics-social-media-activity https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/30/revealed-u...
- chmod775 3y ago
  If getting grades is too much for adults, imagine what it does to children. Suicide among young people over grades and exams isn't exactly rare[1], but only when a teacher collapses under that same pressure we need to have a talk? About grading the adults? What a strange world we live in. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/13/suicides-by-young-people-peak-in-exam-season-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/13/suicides-by-...
akasakahakada 3y ago
> sometimes crashing unexpectedly and losing all notes from interviews, or even whole days of evidence, so that inspectors have to replace those notes from memory without telling the school Let me dig out those comments said software bug is OK something like that.
- guilhas 3y ago
  I think what most comments try to point out, is that the problem is not the bug, but the institutions taking action knowing the software is buggy For example the Post Office, both them and Fujitsu knew the bug for 20 years, they did not request it to be fixed, and in court denied the software could have any problem, while prosecuting people and closing branches. Looks more like a feature than a bug
dazc 3y ago
'Replacing notes from memory' is not ideal but it's far removed from 'make up evidence' used in the headline.
- fabian2k 3y ago
  Depends probably on how extensive and detailed the notes are. And the big problem seems to be that they are hiding the fact that those notes were from memory.
- cowpig 3y ago
  Take a look at this figure[0] from "The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom" [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4183265_nihms-624859-f0002.jpg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...
- 6c696e7578 3y ago
  Indeed, but memory is fine, then why take notes at all? I think the point is that if the inspector only finds out by chance that the notes were not committed then they might have to make it up from memory in a day or week, it just isn't reliable. Why not double account, why not have a separate (software?) dictaphone and write notes? If one is lost, there's the other.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Primary notes or journals should always be hand-written on paper or perhaps recorded, then entered into a more structured database system. This is why lab notebooks are still used in science and engineering. This is why doctors dictate their chart entries. You can always reconstruct from those.
    - fabian2k 3y ago
      Lab notebooks are often digital today. Of course they shouldn't get lost and all changes need to be logged. The software described here would be entirely unacceptable as a lab notebook.
oxfordmale 3y ago
How often does their IT fail? Outsourced to Crapita or Fooljitsu by any chance? With Google Docs/Office 365 the last time I lost a full document is years ago now. I am old enough to have stored my laptop in the fridge when writing my PhD thesis, to keep the fault rate down. However, that is when hard drives where still mechanical, and online backups not a common thing.
- 6c696e7578 3y ago
  I don't know, but offstead things might contain "incidents" with child names and whatnot. Google Docs may not comply with the standards needed. I think the bigger clouds have the security levels, but there may be costs involved. Don't know basically but it might be a deal breaker.
  - oxfordmale 3y ago
    Yes, it is very likely Fooljitsu and Crapita consultants manage to convince them that existing systems do not comply with the relevant laws, and propose an in-house system. I have worked in software consultancy myself. The problem is that the project often starts with senior Engineers, who then gradually get moved to impress new clients, with the final product being delivered by overworked junior Engineers. Until the government gets better at overseeing such large projects, this will keep on happening. However, as governments not spending their own money, but tax payers money instead, there is little incentive.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    This is where the law needs to confront with actual reality. The reality is that data leakage, incorrect access, etc. are all much more likely with a bespoke in-house product than with google docs, even if they haven’t bothered getting the cert needed.
    - 6c696e7578 3y ago
      Yes, but I think ownership is easier to prove when the product is inhouse, regardless of what reality is, if you can point at the thing that has the data in the room next door, that is easier to show than somewhere in cyber space. For that reason I think these bespoke solutions are not going anywhere for the foreseeable. In regards to the Post Office scandal, that same ballsup could happen in any cloud.
londons_explore 3y ago
Here is how I would inspect schools: * Collect together a bunch of metrics of each school. Eg. student test scores, parent satisfaction scores, number of police callouts to the school, number of leaks in the school roof. Also include metrics that aren't obviously good/bad: Number of acres of playgrounds, average tenure of staff, etc. * Gather data of the success of past students, 30-50 years on. For example, employment rate, total earnings, percentage convicted, percentage in good health. * Build a model to predict success metrics from the school metrics. * To rate a school, go collect the school metrics, then run through the model to predict future success metrics. That is your rating. Sure, such an approach has the correlation/causation problem. But this is self-correcting if schools try to optimize their scores as the models are rebuilt each year.
- charlieyu1 3y ago
  All these metrics are easily manipulated. Test scores can be manipulated by giving easier tests. Measuring number of police call-outs just encourages not calling police on emergencies.
  - oogali 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law#Generalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law#Generalizatio...
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Sure, but assuming everyone puts similar amounts of efforts into manipulating the metrics, the model will come to reflect the fact that those metrics are no longer predictive, and there will no longer be a benefit to manipulating them. Thats the benefit of this scheme - it isn't statistically sound, but all the statistical shortcomings eliminate themselves as people try to exploit them.
- wharvle 3y ago
  You’ve just made a map of rich and poor areas with extra steps. Which is effective. If you’re a parent trying to decide which schools you want your kids in, maps of where the money is and maps of school rankings are damn near interchangeable (mostly not for funding-related reasons, though). You could use either and come to similar conclusions.
denton-scratch 3y ago
The OFSTED electronic evidence gathering system seems to have been developed by (or in collaboration with) an outfit called Rainmaker Solutions. They seem to target government agencies. I wanted to see if they are in any way related to Fujitsu; so I visited their "website". But it's not a proper website; instead, it's a demo page for their gee-whizz designers. The navigation is at best excentric. For no good reason, they've replaced the mouse cursor with a blob and a caret. They've tinkered with the scrollbars. There's no About page, which might have told me who owns them, or who their partners are. It's pure puff, an information-free zone. https://rainmaker.solutions/ https://rainmaker.solutions/ If I wanted a useable, practical solution, I'd run a mile from the designers of that website.
- jpsouth 3y ago
  Correction - there is an About page. It’s completely useless and tells you nothing about the company other than they would like to call their team ‘kick-ass multi-disciplinary problem solvers’. Highly trustworthy stuff. Also > Creative Disruptors. Really?
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Yeah, you don't generally want "Creative Disruptors" developing your government IT systems.
u32480932048 3y ago
Pretty sure "England making up evidence" is behind half of America's constitution.

For context, Ofsted is the much-maligned government inspectorate of schools in England. They are currently under increased scrutiny following an inquest into the suicide of a headteacher following an inspection that concluded at the end of last year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639942 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943 https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943

oogali 3y ago
I hope people think more about cases like this and the Post Office when they go to say “it’s not like we’re curing cancer” or “my bad code isn’t a matter of life or death”. You might be far removed from the implications of doing a poor job but that doesn’t mean everyone else is.
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  While I do agree in principle, I think it's also the case that "the software" has been used as a convenient scapegoat and cover for what were incredibly poor practices and dishonest, irresponsible conduct. The fact that software is involved is in some ways a side issue - and while I do agree we as techies do need to consider the responsibility that we have, I'm equally frustrated how the narrative in the Post Office case has been deliberately shifted towards "it was because the software had bugs" as opposed to "multiple people in charge were deliberately deceitful and behaved completely reprehensibly". This is borne out by the UK government's attempted shift of all the responsibility on to Fujitsu in the Post Office case (who are absolutely not blameless) while trying to push attention away from the Post Office's - and by extension the government's - own considerable culpability. I'm sure they'll seek to do the same in this Ofsted situation.
  - adroniser 3y ago
    Absolutely. As far as I know both Fujitsu and the Post Office were aware of the bugs in the system, and deliberately covered them up.
  - graemep 3y ago
    and the government were told the system was likely to be unreliable before they even bought it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mulgan-horizon-post-office-tony-blair-fujitsu/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mu... The whole thing was a shambles and there was no scrutiny from the start.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      Postmasters were literally calling Fujitsu support and telling them that they can see the software is literally wrong(giving explicit examples of depositing £100 and the software showing that there should be £200 in the till) and literally nothing was done about it.
  - oogali 3y ago
    The scapegoating happens because the software is the one "tangible" thing in the chain of blame. It's the one thing that can't be queried and reply with "if I had known...". I do agree with you that Ofsted will likely use the same deflection tactics. It is a failure of all of the humans involved. Whether it is inadequate acceptance testing, prematurely closed bug reports, optimizing for [unreasonable] timelines, or lack of oversight (and to be clear, I am not advocating for micromanagement). I feel both of these statements are true: 1) certain people bear more fault than others and 2) developers aren't blameless. I would like us to reduce our "blame surface area" with a reasonable amount of effort over what we _can_ control.
  - PaulRobinson 3y ago
    I get it, but I have to disagree on two ground. Firstly, in UK law there is an implicit assumption that computers are "reliable". This means that the burden of proof is on the accused proving the software has bugs, rather than them being presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty". In the Ofsted case, given that schools can be put into special measures, teachers and headteachers fired, and in one case a headteacher killed herself because of the data collected and decision made on it, if those systems are not reliable they are not fit for purpose, because it turns the innocent into victims in terms of criminal, and civil employment law. There have been calls for this assumption to be changed [1], but right now: if you are innocent but a piece of software says you are guilty, in the UK the burden of proof falls to you, regardless of how awful the people, their processes and conduct are on the other side. Secondly, there's a deeper moral issue here. Engineers are arguably aiding and abetting. It is almost certainly the case that engineers working on Horizon and Ofsted systems did not tell all the truth all the time at the bequest of their managers and other colleagues throughout all this. "Just doing my job", is the excuse of the scoundrel. I do not buy it. If you're complicit with despicable people, you're complicit. End of. Yes, UK HMG has answers to give, culpability and responsibility, but let's not pretend that engineers built terrible systems, didn't have to face any consequences, and were enabled by arse covering exercises further up the chain. We can - and must - do better than this. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-o...
- IshKebab 3y ago
  While it's obviously better for bugs to not happen, the issue here is that both Ofsted and the Post Office covered up the existence of the bugs, lied about it and didn't fix them. If they'd been like "oh, a bug. We'll fix it" then there would be no issue.
- pjc50 3y ago
  In this case, Ofsted are playing the role of the Post Office prosecutors making career-limiting decisions based on inadequate or forged evidence.
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  The code is usually a reflection of the organisation, not the individual. So while we should all try to write as few bugs as possible a poorly run team can cause at least as many software defects as poor individuals.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  budgets are a value statement. just cause you're an ant here doesn't make you ethically culpable.
- iovrthoughtthis 3y ago
  this isn't individual devs fault this is bad practice by service integrators
vdaea 3y ago
What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Also what does software have to do with that case?
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
  > What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Are you suggesting this is a binary decision, where the only options is choosing "more oversight" or "less oversight"?
  - vdaea 3y ago
    The status quo is "the same amount of oversight". And this article seems to say that since a teacher killed herself for getting "bad grades" then we should have less oversight.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      I believe the point the parent was making is that this isn't a single axes. There are a variety of different types of oversight that can be done on different aspects of schooling.
    - ck425 3y ago
      It's not saying that. It's saying that the current oversight is highly flawed and urgently needs changed. You're falsely equating qualitative change to quantitive change.
    - edstock 3y ago
      How about "better oversight", "constructive oversight" or "beneficial oversight"? Let's not fall into a trap by restricting the space to a single dimension of quantity.
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
      This is such a simplistic conclusion to draw that I can’t help but see it as intentionally dishonest. Oversight is not a knob that you turn up or down. I speak as someone with experience in this field when I say that education like a lot of other things is complex enough that “overnight”, especially with output suitable for public consumption, is far from trivial to deliver. Again, I don’t think that you’re arguing in good faith.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Both the Post-Office/Horizon and OFSTED scandals involve blind deference to unfit technology that have led to deaths. We have been covering these on cybershow.uk with three hour long episodes in the pipeline for release soon. If any HN readers are in the UK and worked for Post Office, OFSTED or at a school and want to contribute insights do please get in touch.
gadders 3y ago
>>much maligned Yes, by teachers and their unions. Parents generally like it and choose schools based on its ratings which are generally credible.
- blowski 3y ago
  Liked by parents before their kids get into the school, often detested after publishing a report that doesn’t match their own experience. I’ve personally seen them make weird recommendations that damaged the school.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Until it hits close to home and people know better. For instance, in the case of that headteacher, I personally know that her school was one of the most highly regarded, with the best results, in town. The headteacher even acted as a consultant to other schools and had been at that school for about 15 years. Then one day, and one day only, Ofsted comes and decrees that the school is OK but that the "leadership" is poor, with tragic consequences. The outpouring of support from parents was huge and anger towards Ofsted very real.
- nottorp 3y ago
  Parents on their first kid have no idea what dealing with a school system really is like. They do on the second kid, but who goes there these days. And even on the second, you may want to use the same school as the first's because you can't afford to drive kids to 2 different schools every morning. Edit: to make it more clear, parents may seem to like this ofsted thing at a point when they don't have any other source and they don't know better.
- afandian 3y ago
  Do they? As a parent I consider OFSTED a low quality signal. If you’re reducing a school to a single word, I don’t think you’re taking the job very seriously. I wonder how others feel.
  - gadders 3y ago
    You'd chose an "inadequate" school over an "outstanding" one? Do carry on putting your politics over your children's future.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
> The coroner said even when she attended hospital feeling suicidal, Mrs Perry felt she couldn't discuss the report with mental health professionals. Holy shit, how did THAT happen ?!?
- afandian 3y ago
  > Two key sources of stress for Ruth Perry, according to the evidence, were the long wait for the report to be published, and the strict confidentiality warning that came with the draft report. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639943 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67639943
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    Yes, I did read that, but what happened to patient-doctor confidentiality, it's not like her name was Edward Snowden ?!? I really wonder what was in that handbook...
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > Holy shit, how did THAT happen ?!? Because OFSTED have been hounding critics, compiling blacklists, sabotaging careers and attempting to have conference speakers critical of them deplatformed. I'll have a dig and see if I can come back with some reference on that. best I can find for now [0] EDIT: added link [0] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/30/revealed-uk-government-keeping-files-on-education-critics-social-media-activity https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/30/revealed-u...
chmod775 3y ago
If getting grades is too much for adults, imagine what it does to children. Suicide among young people over grades and exams isn't exactly rare[1], but only when a teacher collapses under that same pressure we need to have a talk? About grading the adults? What a strange world we live in. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/13/suicides-by-young-people-peak-in-exam-season-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/13/suicides-by-...

akasakahakada 3y ago

> sometimes crashing unexpectedly and losing all notes from interviews, or even whole days of evidence, so that inspectors have to replace those notes from memory without telling the school Let me dig out those comments said software bug is OK something like that.

guilhas 3y ago
I think what most comments try to point out, is that the problem is not the bug, but the institutions taking action knowing the software is buggy For example the Post Office, both them and Fujitsu knew the bug for 20 years, they did not request it to be fixed, and in court denied the software could have any problem, while prosecuting people and closing branches. Looks more like a feature than a bug

dazc 3y ago

'Replacing notes from memory' is not ideal but it's far removed from 'make up evidence' used in the headline.

fabian2k 3y ago
Depends probably on how extensive and detailed the notes are. And the big problem seems to be that they are hiding the fact that those notes were from memory.
cowpig 3y ago
Take a look at this figure[0] from "The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom" [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4183265_nihms-624859-f0002.jpg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...
6c696e7578 3y ago
Indeed, but memory is fine, then why take notes at all? I think the point is that if the inspector only finds out by chance that the notes were not committed then they might have to make it up from memory in a day or week, it just isn't reliable. Why not double account, why not have a separate (software?) dictaphone and write notes? If one is lost, there's the other.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Primary notes or journals should always be hand-written on paper or perhaps recorded, then entered into a more structured database system. This is why lab notebooks are still used in science and engineering. This is why doctors dictate their chart entries. You can always reconstruct from those.
  - fabian2k 3y ago
    Lab notebooks are often digital today. Of course they shouldn't get lost and all changes need to be logged. The software described here would be entirely unacceptable as a lab notebook.

oxfordmale 3y ago

How often does their IT fail? Outsourced to Crapita or Fooljitsu by any chance? With Google Docs/Office 365 the last time I lost a full document is years ago now. I am old enough to have stored my laptop in the fridge when writing my PhD thesis, to keep the fault rate down. However, that is when hard drives where still mechanical, and online backups not a common thing.

6c696e7578 3y ago
I don't know, but offstead things might contain "incidents" with child names and whatnot. Google Docs may not comply with the standards needed. I think the bigger clouds have the security levels, but there may be costs involved. Don't know basically but it might be a deal breaker.
- oxfordmale 3y ago
  Yes, it is very likely Fooljitsu and Crapita consultants manage to convince them that existing systems do not comply with the relevant laws, and propose an in-house system. I have worked in software consultancy myself. The problem is that the project often starts with senior Engineers, who then gradually get moved to impress new clients, with the final product being delivered by overworked junior Engineers. Until the government gets better at overseeing such large projects, this will keep on happening. However, as governments not spending their own money, but tax payers money instead, there is little incentive.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  This is where the law needs to confront with actual reality. The reality is that data leakage, incorrect access, etc. are all much more likely with a bespoke in-house product than with google docs, even if they haven’t bothered getting the cert needed.
  - 6c696e7578 3y ago
    Yes, but I think ownership is easier to prove when the product is inhouse, regardless of what reality is, if you can point at the thing that has the data in the room next door, that is easier to show than somewhere in cyber space. For that reason I think these bespoke solutions are not going anywhere for the foreseeable. In regards to the Post Office scandal, that same ballsup could happen in any cloud.

londons_explore 3y ago

Here is how I would inspect schools: * Collect together a bunch of metrics of each school. Eg. student test scores, parent satisfaction scores, number of police callouts to the school, number of leaks in the school roof. Also include metrics that aren't obviously good/bad: Number of acres of playgrounds, average tenure of staff, etc. * Gather data of the success of past students, 30-50 years on. For example, employment rate, total earnings, percentage convicted, percentage in good health. * Build a model to predict success metrics from the school metrics. * To rate a school, go collect the school metrics, then run through the model to predict future success metrics. That is your rating. Sure, such an approach has the correlation/causation problem. But this is self-correcting if schools try to optimize their scores as the models are rebuilt each year.

charlieyu1 3y ago
All these metrics are easily manipulated. Test scores can be manipulated by giving easier tests. Measuring number of police call-outs just encourages not calling police on emergencies.
- oogali 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law#Generalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law#Generalizatio...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Sure, but assuming everyone puts similar amounts of efforts into manipulating the metrics, the model will come to reflect the fact that those metrics are no longer predictive, and there will no longer be a benefit to manipulating them. Thats the benefit of this scheme - it isn't statistically sound, but all the statistical shortcomings eliminate themselves as people try to exploit them.
wharvle 3y ago
You’ve just made a map of rich and poor areas with extra steps. Which is effective. If you’re a parent trying to decide which schools you want your kids in, maps of where the money is and maps of school rankings are damn near interchangeable (mostly not for funding-related reasons, though). You could use either and come to similar conclusions.

denton-scratch 3y ago

The OFSTED electronic evidence gathering system seems to have been developed by (or in collaboration with) an outfit called Rainmaker Solutions. They seem to target government agencies. I wanted to see if they are in any way related to Fujitsu; so I visited their "website". But it's not a proper website; instead, it's a demo page for their gee-whizz designers. The navigation is at best excentric. For no good reason, they've replaced the mouse cursor with a blob and a caret. They've tinkered with the scrollbars. There's no About page, which might have told me who owns them, or who their partners are. It's pure puff, an information-free zone. https://rainmaker.solutions/ https://rainmaker.solutions/ If I wanted a useable, practical solution, I'd run a mile from the designers of that website.

jpsouth 3y ago
Correction - there is an About page. It’s completely useless and tells you nothing about the company other than they would like to call their team ‘kick-ass multi-disciplinary problem solvers’. Highly trustworthy stuff. Also > Creative Disruptors. Really?
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Yeah, you don't generally want "Creative Disruptors" developing your government IT systems.

u32480932048 3y ago

Pretty sure "England making up evidence" is behind half of America's constitution.