Those on the Right tend to think that Ofsted's belief in progressive teaching methods means that it is unfit to judge lessons. In recent years, what is often called child-centred learning has become the good-teaching norm in schools and teacher-training institutions. Gone are the days where the teacher stands at the front actually teaching, where desks are in rows, children looking to the front, admiring their teacher as a fountain of knowledge from whom they try to learn as much as possible. Rather than putting something into the child, teachers nowadays, like Rousseau, try to draw something out. This means that good lessons are those where children teach each other in groups, where the teacher is a "facilitator" of learning moving among the desks, giving advice and trying to keep the children on task.

 

When Ofsted inspectors judge lessons, they often look for signs of what is called "independent learning" (without guidance from the teacher), of group work, and of so-called "engagement". Some years ago, as assistant head of a London school, my advice to staff for getting through an Ofsted inspection was, "If an inspector is in the room and you find yourself talking for more than five minutes, be sure to move, change activity, get the class in groups, get them talking, anything, just whatever you do, don't continue talking." It worked. Teachers who followed my advice got gold stars. Those who ignored it did badly, and this included teachers who were considered to be the best in the school. 

Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief executive of Ofsted, has been fighting this frame of mind for some time. The new Ofsted guidance, published in December 2013, stipulates: "Inspectors must not give the impression that Ofsted favours a particular teaching style . . . For example, they should not criticise teacher talk for being overlong or bemoan a lack of opportunity for different activities in lessons . . . Do not expect to see ‘independent learning' in all lessons . . . On occasions, too, pupils are rightly passive rather than active recipients of learning. Do not criticise ‘passivity' as a matter of course and certainly not unless it is evidently stopping pupils from learning new knowledge or gaining skills and understanding."

But if you read the Ofsted reports of various schools up and down the country detailing inspections that have taken place since the publication of this new guidance, you will find that in practice nothing has changed. Andrew Old, a teacher and Labour party activist, has written extensively on his blog, Scenes from the Battleground,  about this. The appendix of Daisy Christodoulou's book Seven Myths about Education (she's a Lib Dem supporter) summarises 228 best-practice Ofsted lessons, none of which are traditional. Where schools are praised by Ofsted, reports pick out things like "high-quality teaching where there are plenty of opportunities for students to find out things for themselves". Where schools are criticised and found wanting by Ofsted, one reads judgements like: "Work is over-directed by the teacher and there are few opportunities for students to find things out for themselves." Or "improve the quality of teaching . . . by ensuring that all teachers plan lessons which provide opportunities for students to become more independent."

So clearly Wilshaw and the new guidance are not having much effect. But spare a thought for the poor inspector too. When one isn't allowed to comment on teaching styles in the lesson, it is hard to say anything at all. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for the man at the top trying to turn this oil tanker round. It is particularly frustrating, of course, for schools that are trying to do things differently. At Michaela Community School, our free school in Wembley Park, North London, that will open in September with 120 year sevens, our selling point is that we reject child-centred learning. We are all about knowledge-acquisition and I expect my teachers to be standing at the front of the class teaching our children.