You are right, Jenny, you have pointed that error out before - and I have been sloppy again about the precision of my posting - I'm sorry.
I think I've pointed out before, but in case not...
The title of the video clips is 'Literacy: a non-negotiable', not 'Literacy: the non-negotiables'. It is literacy that Ofsted regards as 'non-negotiable', which is not the same as the suggestion that the particular practices shown are non-negotiable. If criticisms have been based on a misreading, Ofsted will have had some justification for not acting on them.
What I don't agree with, however, is what you said here:
If criticisms have been based on a misreading, Ofsted will have had some justification for not acting on them.
The criticisms the phonics and literacy specialists had of the footage were not based on a mis-reading - they were based on a number of things shown on the video - and also the fact that Ofsted's role, arguably, is not to show video footage as this may unduly influence or mislead teachers as to the politics and pressure of "What Ofsted want to see in their schools''.
A number of us went to extraordinary lengths to be very explicit on many levels of debate.
We suggested that schools would view the videos and think of the phonics practice seen, for example, as 'outstanding' by Ofsted's definition.
This has happened. I know of instances.
The criticism was both specific to the videos' content and the point of principle regarding Ofsted's role/remit.
We found out later that other people were very critical of Ofsted's role in influencing types of teaching practice in their reporting - headed up by 'Andrew Old' who has closely scrutinised for some time and in some detail Ofsted's form of reporting. There is a deep debate currently about progressive v traditional education and whether Ofsted has had too much influence regarding the type of practices in schools.
Schools can produce video footage. Programme authors, teacher-trainers, publishers - can all legitimately produce video footage - but should Ofsted?
Ofsted's response was that the their videos were "well received" in conferences. So what?
And, anyway, how many polite people attending an Ofsted conference are likely to tell Ofsted that the videos showed very weak practice - or perhaps would even think deeply enough to evaluate the practice as weak or potentially flawed?
We were told that trainee inspectors could view the footage with "a critical eye" - but there is no such warning appearing next to the video footage on the internet.
There were long exchanges of papers, letters, conversations - none of which included the points we raised being properly or fully addressed.
I can assure you that despite my sloppy posting above, the attention we went to collectively and individually was not at all sloppy.
Ofsted was not justified in ignoring our worries and criticisms.
On the contrary, the people who wrote, met and spoke to Ofsted representatives on the phone have worked extraordinarily hard in a massive task to raise standards across the country - indeed internationally - and have exceptional experience. It should have been a very powerful and concerning message to Ofsted that people with apparently 'competing' programmes would collaboratively complain.