Memorandum submitted by NAEIAC (OFS 9)
1. The National Association of Educational
Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants (NAEIAC) offers the following
comments on aspects of the current work of Ofsted to the House
of Commons Education and Skills Committee, for consideration prior
to its meeting with Mr Bell on 3 November 2004. NAEIAC enjoys
regular contact and dialogue with HMCI and Ofsted on issues of
current concern to inspectors and to LEAs, schools and colleges,
as well as with the DfES and other national agencies.
SUMMARY OF
SUBMISSION
2. Our submission may be summarised as follows:
— The projected new Ofsted school inspection
model relies upon honest and robust school self-evaluation, but
the actual quality of school self-review in England remains variable.
It may require more than new national guidelines and market-generated
self-evaluation "tools" to ensure satisfactory progress
in this area, since significant cultural change will be necessary
within many schools in order to achieve effective self-evaluation.
— The new inspection proposals are
not "linked up" sufficiently with LEA and other local
school improvement services to secure a genuinely holistic approach
to raising standards of attainment in schools. "Snapshot"
inspections and longer-term external developmental support should
be carefully inter-connected, to build a sustainable framework
to assist school improvement, broadly reflecting the type of model
now emerging in Scotland.
— The Ofsted lead role in developing
the future inspection of better-integrated childrens services
is to be welcomed, given the centrality of schools to overall
government strategy on childrens service delivery and Ofsted's
own track record in successfully extending the range of its formal
inspectorial responsibilities.
RAISING THE
QUALITY OF
SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION
3. An evidence-based approach is required
to assess the actual quality of local school self-evaluation in
England and to inform the practical steps necessary to strengthen
this key aspect of the proposed new model for Ofsted school inspections
in England from September 2005. At this stage, the available evidence
suggests a mixed picture. Published material on this subject is
limited, but includes documents from Ofsted (1998), the National
Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (2000), and other more
recent but narrower studies. Unpublished work includes Ofsted
research on inspection-related self-evaluation documentation,
pointing to a relatively weak overall picture prior to 2001 and
concluding "following the introduction of the revised Form
S4 in 2001, the quality of self-evaluation has improved, but it
is still variable".
4. The practical experience of our membership
in the field underlines the point that self-evaluation has to
be an ongoing process, frequently involving a significant level
of cultural change, as well as focused activity, within an individual
school. As previous NAEIAC evidence to the Select Committee noted
"this is especially relevant where a school retains a traditional,
`authoritarian' headteacher leadership style, with the staff consequently
wary of exposing problems and failures". Ofsted and the DfES
have usefully identified six broadly-defined "acid tests"
of honest and effective school self-review, including the involvement
within the school-level process of "staff, pupils, parents
and governors at all levels". However, current proposals
for positively encouraging schools to make concrete progress in
their area, over the coming period, are apparently restricted
to the preparation of a national guidelines document, supplemented
by a mixture of market-generated self-evaluation products. This
may prove to be insufficient. While paperwork and, where affordable
and well-designed, one-off training courses can assist, there
is no substitute for the more regular, face-to-face, support for
and challenge to the school self-evaluation process which skilled,
external school improvement professionals can offer on a consistent
basis. The link to the LEA is, therefore, particularly important
in this specific connection but other aspects of the wider government
"New Relationship with Schools," (NRwS) programme currently
carry a risk of weakening this support at a time when school self-review
will require additional priority attention.
LINKING INSPECTION
AND DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
5. The recently published Select Committee
sixth report on the work of Ofsted noted that "the value
of inspection is diminished if it is not coupled with advice .
. . the DfES should ensure that schools which receive negative
Ofsted reports are guaranteed to receive support from LEAs . .
.". Indeed, the practical advantages of appropriate forms
of LEA or similar school improvement service involvement with
the specific issues highlighted by formal inspections of individual
schools are evident. HMCI's Annual Report for 2002-03 noted that
"school improvement strategies are at least satisfactory
in all the LEAs inspected . . . LEAs perform their monitoring,
challenge and intervention support roles increasingly well, particularly
in targeting underperforming schools." LEAs, by their nature,
are in a unique position to furnish relevant holistic support,
drawing on a wider system with a range of specialist resources.
6. A practical example of carefully linked-up
external inspectorial and developmental services is now available
from Scotland. HMIE in Scotland has introduced a new school inspection
model, designed to recognise the distinct responsibilities which
fall on schools and on education authorities (EAs) to secure improvement,
and to take due account of school self-evaluation. It is a proportionate
model, under which the extent and nature of HMIE engagement with
schools will vary (depending on the school's capacity to ensure
improvement), each school will have a "core inspection",
and "follow-through" activity from the inspection will
itself be proportionate. Under this model, the core inspections
will identify the key strengths of a school, and HMIE will evaluate
the capacity of the school to ensure further improvement—taking
account of, for example, the quality of leadership, the ability
of the school to accurately identify priorities for improvement,
and earlier successes in ensuring improvements. HMIE then indicates
the appropriate follow-through arrangements.
7. The range of "follow-through"
options are flexible and matched to the needs of the individual
school, and include:
— the school and EA take responsibility
for planning further improvements and reporting to parents.
— EA progress report to HMIE on improvement
after two years and EA report to parents.
— HMIE discusses action plan with school
and EA and arranges visits and meetings as needed to monitor and
provide advice. Follow-through inspection and report to parents
after two years.
— HMIE works with the school and EA
to draw up an action plan and agree a programme of activities
to support implementation. Follow-through inspection and report
after one year (interim) and two years.
— HMIE visits school to gather more
details of good practice.
The specific role of relevant EA educational
advisory staff is, firstly, to provide an evaluative pre-inspection
briefing. Then, the EA officer will join the headteacher for feedback
at the end of the core inspection. Later, EA staff will work with
the school (and HMI where appropriate) in planning further improvements
and maintaining high standards and reporting to parents (and HMIE)
on the outcomes.
8. The key principles behind this new approach
to school inspection in Scotland may be summarised as:
— stronger contribution to supporting
improvement, and developing capacity for further improvement,
through core and proportionate follow-through;
— focused on meeting needs of all,
across a broad front covered by National Priorities;
— increased emphasis on impact and
outcomes.
While the New Relationship with Schools (NRwS)
project in England and the associated Ofsted inspection regime
changes are based on different components, certain practical points
may be considered in the light of this new system in Scotland.
Firstly, the formal inspectorial and the external developmental
systems are positively linked, to ensure shared knowledge and
approaches, but in ways which do not add to meetings/bureaucracy
involving the school and which do not detract from the independent
nature of these external systems. Secondly, the growing importance
of school-self evaluation is recognised, but via an approach which
specifically identifies and assists internal capacity-building
within the school, to ensure genuinely sustainable educational
improvement. Such features should be considered in relation to
the new system now projected for England.
INSPECTION OF
CHILDRENS SERVICES
9. The lead role awarded to Ofsted in developing
an integrated inspection process for the broad range of childrens
services identified in the current Children Bill represents a
welcome and justified development. Schools, with their many existing
points of close connection with local communities, are increasingly
viewed as an appropriate base for the siting of, or closer linkage
to, a wider range of different services devoted to children, and
Ofsted enjoys a decade's experience of inspecting local schools.
In addition, Ofsted, as a central organisation, has already demonstrated,
in practice, that it can successfully extend the scope of its
formal inspectorial responsibilities into new areas, for example
in early years and childrencare settings.
10. There are, of course, a number of practical
issues to be addressed in designing the final form of the new
inspection arrangements for childrens services, presently under
consideration. A common interpretation of basic principles carefully
identified for this purpose will be required, duly reflecting
the level of risk, and the distinct strengths and weaknesses,
in the different areas involved, to undertake the projected Joint
Area Reviews (JARs) in local authority areas. Yet the various
inspectorates involved have difficult structures, traditions and
staff skills and training. NAEIAC does not underestimate the size
of this task of shaping the new system, but remains confident
that suitable opportunities will be provided for detailed views
and input from inspectors, based on their own experience in the
field to date.
October 2004
|
