Julius, I think we agree about a lot, but let me try to expand my points where there are differences between us.
What I was trying to get at is that the words often used in secondary educational discourse do not encourage a culture designed to encourage the liberal, discursive, educational experiences we both value. Let’s talk about teachers who explain rather than deliver and knowledge and understanding rather than skills and facts.
The words of the Ofsted Framework are fine and dandy but what does inspection actually entail? Its harshly judgemental ‘done to’ approach encourages appalling stress, defensiveness and low risk taking. For headteachers it can be career ending…or, apparently, worse. Yes, there certainly have been some poor heads, but somebody trained and appointed them and they must have been good at something once. Why is it that they are often the only ones to suffer the consequences of their ways?
Football managers accept dismissal as an occupational hazard, but soon find new jobs. It’s not the same for failed headteachers, they just seem to disappear. Can we afford to see professional people who were once deemed gifted cast out the profession?

I am also troubled by the brevity of inspections, the dubious value of some evidence and the way it is gathered and the credentials of some inspectors. These all contribute to a sense of injustice and unfairness and risks driving those with a choice out of the profession. These are the very people we need to retain if we are to develop the educational experiences we both value.

Hi Bob. Whilst I agree with you that there are problems with our education system – too many exams and accountability regimes that may stifle innovation and exploration you are attacking the wrong messenger.
This is what the Ofsted framework actually says:
Inspectors will make a judgement on the quality of education by evaluating the extent to which:
leaders take on or construct a curriculum that is ambitious and designed to give all learners, particularly the most disadvantaged and those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) or high needs, the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life
the provider’s curriculum is coherently planned and sequenced towards cumulatively sufficient knowledge and skills for future learning and employment
teachers present subject matter clearly, promoting appropriate discussion about the subject matter they are teaching.
teachers create an environment that allows the learner to focus on learning. The resources and materials that teachers select – in a way that does not create unnecessary workload for staff – reflect the provider’s ambitious intentions for the course of study and clearly support the intent of a coherently planned curriculum,
Do you disagree with any of that?
I have just visited three schools which had been failing, with falling numbers because no parents wanted to send their children there. They are now all rated “Good”, teaching Classics to pupils from very disadvantaged communities, with murals about Socrates on the walls. I have not yet met any “managers (rather than educationalists)” running schools. I have met some excellent managers who are also educationalists. Some of these schools were failing because of educationalists who were poor managers! Schools are complex places that require management.
Declaration of Interest: I was chair of Ofsted and now chair an Academy Trust