APPENDIX 11
Memorandum from the National Association
of Headteachers (NAHT) (OAR 13)
1. The points noted by NAHT in this submission
cover the following points:
— Schools failing their second inspection.
— Inner city schools.
— Provision of a broad curriculum.
— School funding.
— Monitoring the curriculum.
— School Staffing.
— Evidential basis for some comments.
These comments are developed below, with reference
to the numbered paragraphs of the Chief Inspector's report.
2. Schools failing their second inspection
The Report notes in the Commentary that "Too
many" schools are failing their second inspection, or being
found to have serious weaknesses. Immediately before that, the
Commentary notes that "We cannot tolerate a situation where
standards in some schools are being allowed to decline".
However, schools would argue that comparing inspection outcomes
reached in, say, 1995-96 with those reached three-four years later
is not comparing like with like. By 1998-99 inspections focused
more closely on GCSE/SAT outcomes than had been the case in previous
years, and it was in September 1998 that the summary report first
contained gradings seeking to compare the performance of the school
with that of "similar" schools. It would be useful to
explore the extent to which the Chief Inspector feels the changing
nature of inspections accounts for the apparent decline in standards
shown by these inspections. An extension of this, although not
strictly relevant to the 1998-99 findings, would be the effect
he anticipates of the changes to the inspection arrangements introduced
in January 2000.
3. Inner City Schools
Paragraph 31 of the report discusses schools
serving areas of socio-economic disadvantage, and notes that these
schools "still have a long way to go before their pupils
achieve the national expectations in literacy and numeracy".
Many heads working in such schools would find it helpful to have
a more detailed statement of the "general improvement"
noted in that sentence. Similarly, the schools described in paragraph
98 are always going to find it harder than other schools to achieve
GCSE scores in line with national averages—indeed the successes
noted in paragraph 99 are with similar, rather than with all,
schools. Accepting that to be successful requires the qualities
set out in paragraph 100, it would be useful to explore with the
Chief Inspector the link between the circumstances of the pupils
outlined in paragraph 98 and their performance at GCSE.
4. Provision of a broad curriculum
In paragraph 57 the report notes that traditional
after school activities are coming under pressure from "academic
subject-based study support". In terms of the school day,
paragraph 11 notes the reduced teaching of drama as part of the
English curriculum, while paragraph 73 refers to the pressure
on subjects such as physical education, art and music as a result
of the time taken up by literacy and numeracy. The report does,
however, note (paragraphs 48-49) that most schools are able to
provide a broad curriculum. There clearly is pressure on the curriculum,
an issue which has been raised in the past, and it would be helpful
to explore the view of the Chief Inspector on implications for
a broad and balanced primary curriculum.
5. School Funding
NAHT has on a number of occasions drawn attention
to the inequities of funding of schools within different LEAs,
and called for a more transparent and equitable system for funding
schools. The implication of this is for schools to be funded accorded
to a National Funding Formula. This would not imply that all schools
would necessarily receive the same amount of funding, rather that
the needs of schools would be funded on a similar level irrespective
of the LEA in which they worked. Therefore, NAHT supports the
points made in the Commentary, where the Chief Inspector notes
the need for "a transparent and educationally defensible
mechanism" for the allocation of school and LEA funding.
6. Monitoring the Curriculum
For subject co-ordinators in primary schools
to undertake significant curriculum monitoring requires funding
to release them from the classroom during the school day to carry
out this role. Paragraph 70 notes that it is usually only the
headteacher who has sufficient non-teaching time to do this. A
further question here is the head of the small primary school,
who is likely to have his/her own substantial class teaching responsibility
in addition to responsibilities as headteacher. Even in a 2/3
class school, the head will need time during the school day to
monitor teaching and learning in the other classrooms.
On the subject of monitoring, it would be interesting
to explore the extent to which the Chief Inspector feels schools
are appraising staff on an informal basis, even if fewer schools
are using the model set up in the 1991 regulations.
7. School Staffing
To what extent does the Chief Inspector feel
the comments in paragraph 74 reflect the complexities of the current
teacher recruitment situation? It would be helpful to know whether
inspection evidence shows the implications of unfilled vacancies,
at teacher or headteacher level, on school provision.
8. Evidential base for some comments
In particular in relation to secondary schools,
there are a number of generalised statements which are less helpful
than those more sharply focused. For example, paragraph 121 talks
about attendance, noting that "Changes in the patterns of
attendance of pupils are not always detected early enough..."
It is not clear what proportion of schools is covered by this
comment. Similarly, in paragraph 130 appears the criticism that
"some schools fail to offer enough choice..." There
is no indication of the proportion of schools whose inspections
showed this fault. In paragraph 129, comes the comments that time
allocated to music and art is "occasionally insufficient",
while "some schools" expect pupils to study two modern
foreign languages. Without some indication as to the proportion
of schools involved it is difficult to assess the extent of this
problem. For the Chief Inspector's report to give a true reflection
of the state of teaching and learning in schools in England requires
more detailed reporting of inspection findings.
National Association of Headteachers
February 2000
| 
