7 ms·

For context, Ofsted is the much-maligned government inspectorate of schools in England. They are currently under increased scrutiny following an inquest into th

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...
    - dazc 3y ago
      '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".' Not sure this is true, people were mainly convicted because they pleaded guilty to avoid going to jail. There may be instances where you are correct but I'm not aware of any? The general rule of being innocent unless proven guilty does, generally, hold. The issue with these cases is that many people convicted early on had no proper legal representation. Alan Bates, for instance, refused to accept the charges and was never convicted because no evidence of his guilt was ever presented. He stood his ground and was an outlier case.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    Your comment brings up an old memory. Lady mentioned once when she was a regional manager at a department store chain. They started having the till go short every so often at one store. Usually it's one person stealing. But looking at the video's they couldn't tell who. And there wasn't a pattern. Then it started happening at two other stores. And then another. The head of security had a hunch, took her to one of the stores after hours and pulled the register apart and they found two hundred dollars inside the machine. The first store had been the first to get a new model register. And the new model tended to slurp bills out of the till if you closed it too hard. So this isn't a new software thing. It's a problem with a management culture that shifts blame rather than get to the root of the problem.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's a great case, and well worth studying for anybody involved in forensics or adjacent fields. Way too often the first target for 'the blame' is stuck with it without someone taking the trouble to really find out what is happening.
- 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-...

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...
  - dazc 3y ago
    '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".' Not sure this is true, people were mainly convicted because they pleaded guilty to avoid going to jail. There may be instances where you are correct but I'm not aware of any? The general rule of being innocent unless proven guilty does, generally, hold. The issue with these cases is that many people convicted early on had no proper legal representation. Alan Bates, for instance, refused to accept the charges and was never convicted because no evidence of his guilt was ever presented. He stood his ground and was an outlier case.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  Your comment brings up an old memory. Lady mentioned once when she was a regional manager at a department store chain. They started having the till go short every so often at one store. Usually it's one person stealing. But looking at the video's they couldn't tell who. And there wasn't a pattern. Then it started happening at two other stores. And then another. The head of security had a hunch, took her to one of the stores after hours and pulled the register apart and they found two hundred dollars inside the machine. The first store had been the first to get a new model register. And the new model tended to slurp bills out of the till if you closed it too hard. So this isn't a new software thing. It's a problem with a management culture that shifts blame rather than get to the root of the problem.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's a great case, and well worth studying for anybody involved in forensics or adjacent fields. Way too often the first target for 'the blame' is stuck with it without someone taking the trouble to really find out what is happening.
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-...