APPENDIX 12
Memorandum from the Local Government Association
(OAR 14)
This submission
— argues for greater transparency in
LEA inspection and reports;
— questions HMCI's model on LEA inspection
and advisory services;
— notes that local innovation can lead
to national good practice;
— suggests a role for OFSTED in disseminating
good practice within LEAs; and
— argues against national funding for schools.
INTRODUCTION
1. The LGA is the authoritative voice for
local government representing all authorities in England and all
but one in Wales.
2. The LGA supports the principle of inspection
for both schools and local education authorities (LEAs). Inspection
could and should lead to improvement, and it is right that schools
and LEAs that are not providing an effective education service
should be made aware of their deficiencies.
3. However, the LGA does have some concerns
over the methodology and the conclusions drawn by HMCI.
TRANSPARENCY
4. The LGA would like to see greater transparency
and "consistency" in OFSTED's inspections of LEAs and,
in particular, the links between the evidence and conclusions
made. From reading LEA inspection reports, it is unclear on what
basis OFSTED forms its judgements: the text for two different
authorities can be very similar, yet one will be judged in need
of intervention and the other not.
5. The need for transparency and clarity
of judgements is demonstrated by conflicting messages on LEAs.
HMCI's annual report states that of the 41 authorities inspected,
12 LEAs received critical reports and four needed intervention
by the Secretary of State. A recent story in the Times Educational
Supplement (TES 4 February 2000 reported that OFSTED "has
found cause for concern in 23 of the 59 English local authorities
it has so far inspected". A clearer taxonomy of LEA judgements
will prevent obfuscation and give a clearer indication of the
performance of LEAs, which will benefit all those involved in
education, including schools and local government. This could
mirror what already happens in school inspections.
LEA INSPECTION AND
ADVISORY SERVICE
6. HMCI argues that LEAs waste resources
by supplying support advice to all its schools. The LGA does not
accept that HMCI's model of good LEA practice in this area is
necessarily correct. Indeed, the Code of Practice on LEA-School
relations indicates that school visits are part of the LEA's advisory
services (paragraph 73). Certainly, successful schools will not
require as many visits as less successful schools, however, qualitative
data collected by LEAs is not necessarily sufficient to indicate
weaknesses. Waiting until weaknesses become apparent through test
data is too late, and school visits allow advisers to detect signs
of incipient decline or indications that a school is not providing
sufficient challenge to its pupils. Even a "light touch",
to have value, must involve more than leaving a calling card.
7. Furthermore, LEA visits allow the identification
of good practice within schools, the dissemination of which contributes
to raising standards throughout all schools. If LEAs were to concentrate
solely on those schools requiring support, good practice would
remain locked within a few schools. The Code of Practice on LEA-school
relationships notes that "in carrying out their role in identifying,
disseminating and celebrating success and best practice, it may
be appropriate for advisers to visit successful schools more frequently
(paragraph 73e).
INITIATIVES WITHIN
SCHOOLS
8. The annual report comments on the "plethora
of ineffective and often unwelcome initiatives which . . . waste
money and confuse and irritate schools". The conflation of
the adjectives ineffective and unwelcome is inappropriate. Initiatives
may be unwelcome, but that does not necessarily mean they should
not be introduced. The literacy hour, for example, was not at
first welcome in all schools, but has subsequently received praise
from HMCI for having a marked impact on raising standards. Today's
tried and tested methods will have begun as innovations, the effectiveness
of which was unknown. Many of central government's initiatives
within education were initially developed by local government,
which has developed with schools initiatives on citizenship, music,
creativity, arts and health. Local authorities have a role in
giving strategic leadership to schools, including the introduction
of innovative practice.
GOOD PRACTICE
WITHIN LEAS
9. We have made the point before, and remain
of the view that the wider role of the LEA besides its key job
of raising standards within schools, should always be acknowledged
in the report. The community leadership role is a key task of
elected members and local government has been recognised in current
legislation (Local Government Bill) as having to co-ordinate and
contribute to adult, community and further education provision
in their area. Giving leadership generally, as well as in relation
to the performance of its schools, is important for the LEA. Its
achievements deserve recognition in an inspection report, or else
the inspection process will continue to reflect only part of the
effectiveness of the local authority.
10. It is unfortunate that LEA inspections
concentrate on the negative aspects of LEAs, and that little attention
is paid to the positive features. This is not simply the fault
of the media. OFSTED itself releases press releases on authorities
with critical reports, but not on those with good reports. A wider
value would be attached to the reports if they were perceived
as signposts to innovation and successful implementation.
11. The practice of concentrating on the
negative is manifested by the absence of any OFSTED publication
highlighting the range of good practice within LEAs—as happens
with school inspections. OFSTED—which will visit every LEA—is
in a unique position to identify and disseminate good practice,
which will benefit policy makers in local and central government,
and would contribute to raising standards generally.
RESOURCES
12. The annual report notes the confusion
and disparities within school funding, and raises the issue of
a national funding system for schools. The LGA agrees that it
is important that schools have a greater understanding of where
the money in their budget comes from, which is not only from the
LEA schools budget, but also from many of the government initiatives,
such as Excellence in Cities, Education Action Zones and the Standards
Fund. These initiatives increase the disparities between schools'
funding. National funding for schools would reduce the amount
of money available for schools, as local authorities have continued
to fund schools at around half a billion more than central government
assesses schools' needs.
Local Government Association
February 2000
| 
