{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027067111605487578, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014831294030404152, 'mean_word_length': 5.40855106888361, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ofsted – ‘brief encounters of a second kind’?!

Background: Since 1995, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) has inspected the quality of all Initial Teacher Training (ITT) provision in England on behalf of the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). Ofsted inspection results are published and are highly significant because the TDA has a statutory duty to take account of them when allocating trainee numbers, funding ITT provision and making accreditation decisions. Yet, concerns have been expressed over the reliability, validity and credibility of inspections as well as over limitations in the methodology and/or the ‘high stakes’ involved. In recent years, however, there have been revisions to the inspection framework and the inspection arrangements in place at the time of writing, which comprise full and short inspections, propose to be effective, efficient, cost-effective and less burdensome. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical account of the authors' most recent ‘short’ Ofsted Inspection of ITT at Loughborough University as a follow-up to earlier papers published by the authors and colleagues on the inspection of their secondary Physical Education ITT provision. In particular, the authors consider the extent to which the process is effective, efficient, cost-effective, less burdensome and represents a ‘brief encounter’. Method: The account is informed by data from various sources. ITT staff kept journals for a period of seven months leading up to, during, and following the inspection in which they detailed their Ofsted activities, experiences and reflections. Staff periodically completed their journals recording the preparation, work and meetings they were involved in, and noting and reflecting on any problems, issues, concerns, anxieties, frustrations and/or other emotions they experienced. Documentary evidence in the form of Ofsted Handbooks, Guidance plus other paperwork the inspection generated was also collected for analysis. Finally, to augment and support the findings from the journals and documentary evidence, a review of related literature was undertaken. Analysis of the data involved identification of key issues. Discussion and conclusion: Based on the authors' experiences and reflections and the findings from the literature, a number of issues and limitations with the inspection process and framework are highlighted. Given these, the authors declare that they remain cynical about the whole process and the validity of the outcomes. They contest the notion that the inspection process is effective, efficient and cost-effective and feel that it continues to place an enormous burden on providers.