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

51–60 of 81 posts

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

#51

Post by BlueTemplar »

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

> 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 ?!?

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

#52

Post by BlueTemplar »

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…

In this case, one of the main issues seems to be that assigning a grade of "unknown/uncertain" wasn't an option, regardless of what issues could have happened during the field work ?

I'm also annoyed at how the Guardian is parroting the "made up" term, which is a terrible misrepresentation of "relying on your memory of the events".

Speaking of decision-helping tools, there has been a French law for some years now : for any administrative use of them, the target citizen can request the algorithm to be explained to them in clear language.

(I already have my popcorn ready for the inevitable clash with the fiscal inspection, which not only tends to operate as if laws didn't apply to them, but also I hear started using neural networks, which have basically no way to conform to this requirement.)

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

#53

Post by denton-scratch »

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/

If I wanted a useable, practical solution, I'd run a mile from the designers of that website.

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

#54

Post by jevoten »

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…

> "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.

There's a world of difference between human fallibility, and knowingly doing evil as part of one's job. I won't call the bricklayer evil if someone builds a 10-story skyscraper [1] atop his humble garden shed foundation, that ends up collapsing and killing everyone inside.

[1] To make the analogy perfectly clear - the skyscraper is not the software, but the persecution based on assuming the software is infallible.

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

#55

Post by obernard »

gadders wrote: post #44
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Semantics. All the funding comes from the state.

It is really not semantics, because of the amount of control that academies have over the work the teachers do, and because of their freedom to hire and fire teachers.

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

#56

Post by whimsicalism »

6c696e7578 wrote: post #15
oxfordmale wrote: post #6

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.

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.

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.

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

#57

Post by afandian »

gadders wrote: post #25
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

>>much maligned Yes, by teachers and their unions. Parents generally like it and choose schools based on its ratings which are generally credible.

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.

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

#58

Post by afandian »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #51
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

> 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 ?!?

> 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

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

#59

Post by gadders »

obernard wrote: post #55
gadders wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semantics. All the funding comes from the state.

It is really not semantics, because of the amount of control that academies have over the work the teachers do, and because of their freedom to hire and fire teachers.

Do they have freedom over how much they pay the teachers?

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

#60

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

gadders wrote: post #25
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

>>much maligned Yes, by teachers and their unions. Parents generally like it and choose schools based on its ratings which are generally credible.

I am not a parent.

If I were a parent, I would assume Ofsted scores to be useless. Why? Because I know teachers and what they experience about the Ofsted process, which is Kafkaesque and officious.

It is much easier to look at the exam results, visit the school, ask people in an area what the kids are like at the bus stop —- are they well-behaved or are they scary? —- and ask young adults who recently left school what the teachers are like.

Post reply on HN