Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

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

#41

Post by wharvle »

londons_explore wrote: post #34

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, employme…

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.

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

#42

Post by SoftTalker »

6c696e7578 wrote: post #13
dazc wrote: post #5

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

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.

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.

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

#43

Post by andy_ppp »

oogali wrote: post #4
DicIfTEx wrote: post #2

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 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943

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.

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.

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

#44

Post by gadders »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #31
gadders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're state employees. That's not how things work in the public sector. I mean we all get OKRs, objectives etc but government employees are a special case.

Most UK teachers aren't state employees any more: they're employed by academy trusts.

Semantics. All the funding comes from the state.

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

#45

Post by londons_explore »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #38
londons_explore wrote: post #34

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, employme…

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.

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.

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

#46

Post by cyanydeez »

oogali wrote: post #4
DicIfTEx wrote: post #2

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 and https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67639943

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.

budgets are a value statement.

just cause you're an ant here doesn't make you ethically culpable.

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

#47

Post by fabian2k »

SoftTalker wrote: post #42
6c696e7578 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#48

Post by PaulRobinson »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #21
oogali wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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-o...

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

#49

Post by gambiting »

graemep wrote: post #29
tailspin2019 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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-mu... The whole thing was a shambles and there was no scrutiny from the start.

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.

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

#50

Post by dazc »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #48
tailspin2019 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

'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.

Post reply on HN