I was tough, but Chris Woodhead was tougher
|
Version 0 of 1. Chris Woodhead was incredibly brave. He did not let a diagnosis of motor neurone disease stop him driving forward with his usual tenacity for the things he believed in. But he was also always ready to take on issues and “tell it as he saw it”, even if this made him unpopular in some quarters. His strength was also his weakness. He was prepared to take on the cause of children when chief inspector of schools in England and Wales by highlighting gross failure and promoting his favoured approach – in particular, a specific method of teaching literacy – and he brooked no argument, even when the disagreement was marginal. Related: Former Ofsted chief Chris Woodhead dies aged 68 That was Woodhead’s achilles heel, in my view. I had dealings with him firstly in opposition, and then for four years as education and employment secretary when we agreed with each other 95% of the time. But he was never one for agreeing to disagree. This became a weakness: that uniting to root out failure and to lay aside the absurdity that poverty and disadvantage was a barrier to success, was not enough. Because I believed that in order to give schools “freedom” and autonomy for their school leaders, we would also need to provide collaboration and support, Woodhead felt that I was deviating from the true path of education reform. Today, the government is still struggling with the contradiction of total freedom for schools on the one hand and rigorous accountability on the other. Looking back now it is possible to appreciate just how many children had been let down by the benign tolerance of the intolerable. The acceptance of enormous variation in the performance of schools serving similar neighbourhoods was rightly a driving force for his determination to shake up the system using the search light of the inspection system. That is why his real legacy will be both the recognition of the importance of tough inspection and the need for transparency of information, which is vital if we are to delve into the dark corners of incompetence, indifference and ideological baggage. To deliver an education system that liberates the talent of every child, and prepares the nation for the economic challenges of the future, we will need the rigour that Woodhead espoused – but we will also need the creativity and “soft skills” about which he was so sceptical. In reflecting on his contribution, I’m struck by the occasional regret that I have in not being as tough and forthright as I might have been, although this was not the perception at the time. When Woodhead received considerable brickbats from the teaching profession for declaring 15,000 teachers were not up to the job, it was in fact a gross underestimate. It is sad that to his dying day he did not fully appreciate what change has been achieved over the last quarter of the century in transforming the English education system but we must acknowledge the fullness of the contribution that he made to that process of radical improvement. |