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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by guilhas »

akasakahakada wrote: post #3

> 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.

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

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

#72

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

gadders wrote: post #66
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

Haha. "Hi kids. Are your teachers nice to you?" That's a good way to get put on a register. But assuming the kids were nice, yet the school was rated "inadequate" - you would choose that over a school rated "outstanding"? I can tell you're not a parent.

Apart from your (judging by your comment history apparently quite typical) insulting snide bullshit reading of my comment, for which go fuck yourself:

Yes. I know of a school locally to me that is rated inadequate that the parents adore, that I would choose over the next nearest independent day school which turns out weird aloof little Stepford children.

As for the snarky intentional bullshit misreading: “recently left school” in the UK means “completed school” as well, as in “recently left school for university” or “recently left school for college”. Engage your brain when I am talking about young adults and it should be clear I was talking about school leavers. They are the right people to ask if a school is good or not, because they are the ones most recently impacted by its actual performance.

By the way, well done for being able to tell I am not a parent. Perhaps you deduced that from the opening sentence where I said “I am not a parent”? That was a tricky one, so clever you :-)

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

#73

Post by jacquesm »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #68
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…

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…

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.

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

#74

Post by chmod775 »

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

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-...

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

#75

Post by LtWorf »

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 uk they weren't allowed to inspect the software for a looooong time. And you can't prove anything without inspection.

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

#76

Post by d1sxeyes »

gadders wrote: post #59
obernard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, academies are not bound to the “Blue Book”, and can pay teachers whatever they like under whatever conditions they like (with the exceptions of teachers TUPEd in).

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

#77

Post by 6c696e7578 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #56
6c696e7578 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#78

Post by jpsouth »

denton-scratch wrote: post #53

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,…

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?

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

#79

Post by CogitoCogito »

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…

> 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.

This really is an incredibly stupid law. I could see assuming that computers are correctly operating as _instructed_ (e.g. the cpu doesn’t have bugs), but assuming that software is implemented correctly is just crazy. Everyone knows that software is buggy and updates are released all the time. Declaring that software is infallible is ridiculous.

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

#80

Post by gadders »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #72
gadders wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. "Hi kids. Are your teachers nice to you?" That's a good way to get put on a register. But assuming the kids were nice, yet the school was rated "inadequate" - you would choose that over a school rated "outstanding"? I can tell you're not a parent.

Apart from your (judging by your comment history apparently quite typical) insulting snide bullshit reading of my comment, for which go fuck yourself: Yes. I know of a school locally to me that is rated inadequate that the parents adore, that I would choose over the next nearest independent day school which turns out weird aloof little Stepford children. As for the snarky intentional bullshit misreading: “recently le…

I think it is easy to claim you would make an position in line with your ideology when you don't have skin in the game.
Post reply on HN