Memorandum submitted by the NASUWT (OFS
14)
1. NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to make
a written submission to the Select Committee on the work of Ofsted.
2. NASUWT is the largest union representing
teachers and headteachers in primary, secondary and special schools,
sixth form colleges and FE colleges throughout the UK.
SCHOOL WORKFORCE
REMODELLING
3. The impact of inspection on teacher workload
remains a major concern. NASUWT has undertaken numerous surveys
that demonstrate that the Ofsted inspection process remains one
of the greatest sources of additional workload and anxiety both
for teachers and for headteachers. Stress and the workload created
by preparing for inspection have a major impact on the professional
and personal lives of teachers.
4. It is, therefore, vital that the new
inspection regime takes full account of the provisions of the
National Agreement "Raising Standards and Tackling Workload".
5. The fundamental principle behind the
National Agreement is remodelling of the school workforce to free
teachers from tasks that do not require their professional skills
and expertise, enabling them to focus on teaching and learning
to continue to raise standards in schools. The new inspection
framework must recognise the provisions, aims and objectives of
the Agreement and the contractual and regulatory changes that
have taken place.
6. Ofsted must ensure that the workforce
remodelling agenda and the new statutory duties for schools are
firmly embedded in the inspection process. The new inspection
framework should require inspectors to make judgements about the
extent to which a school is fulfilling these responsibilities
and implementing the Agreement. Ofsted also has a key role to
play in monitoring implementation of the Agreement.
7. It is essential that all inspectors understand
the National Agreement and its implications for the way in which
schools are working. Although the National Remodelling Team (NRT)
has provided briefings for registered inspectors, Ofsted should
provide mandatory training and guidance for all inspectors on
the Agreement and Ofsted's role in inspecting it. Without this
the confidence of schools to use support staff in the roles provided
for in the Agreement will be undermined as they will neither be
convinced that inspectors understand the provisions and objectives
of the Agreement, nor that they will concentrate only on judging
the effectiveness of schools' management of arrangements for raising
standards.
8. NASUWT has a fundamental concern that
the rationale for and purpose of school inspection remains unclear.
These issues must be clarified before the new inspection framework
is implemented.
The new inspection regime must:
— place a minimal burden on schools;
— not require schools to do any preparation
for an inspection;
— make use of the wealth of data that
is already available. Schools should not be required to prepare
or collate any data for the purposes of inspection;
— take full account of the requirements
and implications of the National Agreement "Raising Standards
and Tackling Workload";
— be focused and brief. Inspection
should focus on the school's management arrangements and processes,
and the outcomes for pupils and staff in terms of efficiency,
equity and effectiveness;
— shift from being a punitive regime
to one that is supportive and focuses on helping schools to improve;
— provide fair judgements in which
the profession and the public can have confidence;
— operate in unity with the other systems
of inspection, performance management, advice and support, including
those carried out by HMIs and LEAs. To achieve this, the revision
of the inspection regime must form part of a wider review and
evaluation of the inspection, monitoring and support arrangements
for schools;
— not duplicate other systems of monitoring,
performance management and support.
SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION
9. NASUWT is committed fully to the principles
that underpin the Government's New Relationship with Schools (NRwS)
strategy. If implemented as intended it should enhance the professional
status of teachers, free schools and teachers from the unnecessary
bureaucracy that has stifled their professionalism, creativity
and effectiveness and introduce a more sensible framework of accountability.
10. One of the key components of NRwS is
the proposal to reduce the burdens of school inspection by placing
a greater emphasis on the use of self-evaluation systems in schools.
11. NASUWT supports the DfES and Ofsted
strategy to trial changes to the inspection framework and the
use of school self-evaluation systems. It is vital, in developing
the new arrangements for self-evaluation in schools, that Ofsted
ensures that the new arrangements do not increase the workload
burdens on schools.
12. Ofsted will also need to develop confidence
in schools that self-evaluation outcomes will be used appropriately.
Schools should not be penalised for undertaking honest self-evaluations
where they identify areas for improvement. NASUWT is aware of
instances where schools have provided inspectors with evaluations
of their strengths along with clear plans of action for addressing
areas for improvement and some inspectors have appeared to use
these as a short cut to making critical inspection judgements
about the school.
13. Despite concerns that have been expressed
by NASUWT to Ofsted, the inspectorate has remained opposed to
the development and publication of a model self-evaluation protocol
which could be followed in all schools. This is a particularly
unhelpful omission within the current developments.
14. Evidence from the conduct of school
inspection under the present framework confirms that many schools'
anxieties about the inspection process lead to the establishment
of unreasonable and workload-intensive systems during the notice
period which detract teachers and heads from their core functions
and undermine educational standards.
15. Ofsted has suggested previously that
"much of the bureaucracy associated with inspection arises
not from Ofsted's demands but from teachers feeling that they
must undertake extensive preparation over the months and weeks
leading up to inspection." This suggests that teachers are
responsible for the inspection workload. NASUWT challenges this
assertion. Many schools are forced to undertake detailed preparation
for inspection because of inconsistencies in the expectations
and judgements of different inspection teams. Faced by these uncertainties,
heads and governors often require teachers to undertake detailed
preparation in the months leading up to an inspection. The introduction
of school self-evaluation may well serve to exacerbate this problem.
16. The new short-notice inspections have
the potential to reduce the workload and anxiety of staff, providing
Ofsted builds in safeguards to avoid schools being on a permanent
"war footing". However, schools' anxieties could increase
and they will undoubtedly be on a permanent "war footing"
if the proposals which are being trialled by Ofsted currently
are allowed to be introduced in their current form without any
mediating protocols and guidance to restrict workload associated
with self-evaluation systems.
17. Evidence of the operation of self-evaluation
schemes in other sectors has demonstrated that such schemes can
impose enormous burdens on institutions, whilst failing catastrophically
to establish whether or not an organisation is effective.
18. The evidence suggests that where self-evaluation
is not developed as a consistent and agreed national model it
adds to bureaucracy and undermines educational standards. Therefore,
it is vital that the benefits of the self-evaluation arrangements
being trialled by Ofsted are evaluated fully before the new arrangements
are rolled out across all schools.
19. Schools already manage a whole host
of internal systems for planning, target setting, benchmarking,
and the review of individual and school performance. The school
self-evaluation framework must not become a "bolt-on"
process. There must be coherence and streamlining of arrangements
and information. Ofsted should be required to set out precisely
its expectations of schools in this regard and how schools' use
of self-evaluation systems will be judged. Emerging evidence from
the self-evaluation pilots suggests that Ofsted has not as yet
addressed these critical issues fully in consultation with the
Government's school workforce partners.
20. NASUWT is concerned that there are significant
hidden costs associated with the operation of self-evaluation
systems which raise important questions about public efficiency
and accountability. Ofsted and the Audit Commission should be
invited to indicate how the proposed new arrangements will lead
to greater organisational efficiency and effectiveness in schools.
22 October 2004
| 
