Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers
1. We start by signalling an achievement:
the flow of complaints about poor quality inspection received
by ATL has steadily declined over the last year. We are therefore
cautiously optimistic about the effectiveness with which concerns
about quality have been and continue to be addressed.
On this occasion, therefore, we confine our
attention to some other more over-arching issues:
— effective learning and teaching;
— joint inspections and consistent
judgements in the early years; and
— evidence that Ofsted's reports are
having the necessary impact.
2. EFFECTIVE
LEARNING AND
TEACHING
2.1 Ofsted's Framework for Inspection requires
inspectors to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of teaching
and learning. From large numbers of Ofsted reports, it would appear
that the main focus of inspection is on teaching rather than on
learning. The one does not necessarily follow the other.
2.2 When "learning" is mentioned
in Ofsted reports, it is most often used to describe one of three
activities: teaching, performance and school work. However, teaching
professionals know that:
— the relationship between what is
taught and what is learnt is rich and complex—learning is
not simply "being taught";
— a focus on "performance"
can depress effective learning: learners end up with negative
ideas about their abilities—evidence shows that a focus
on learning can enhance performance; and
— pupils who are encouraged to focus
on "learning" rather than simply on "work"
achieve very much better results.
2.3 Although the Framework for Inspection
talks about "effective learning" there is no definition
as to what this means, or how the qualities of effective learning
can be identified and understood. If the Framework is to work
in the best interests of learners and teachers, considerably more
information is needed on Ofsted's understanding of effective learning.
2.4 The DfES has recently published its
Core Principles for Teaching and Learning. In a covering letter
accompanying the Core Principles, the Head of the DfES Standards
and Effectiveness Unit has made it clear that these principles
will constitute the Department's expectations and guidance for
schools. Indeed, the Core Principles are embedded in the new National
Primary Strategy.
2.5 There is, however, no apparent relationship
between the Department's Core Principles and guidance in the Ofsted
Framework as to judging the effectiveness of teaching and learning
in schools. Thus while the DfES has made explicit its expectation
that schools will adhere to the principles, this expectation is
not reflected in the Framework for Inspection.
3. EARLY YEARS
ISSUES
3.1 Ofsted must ensure consistency of inspection
across foundation stage provision.
The foundation stage of education happens in
maintained, private, voluntary and independent settings. Ofsted
inspections are carried out under section 10 of the Schools Inspection
Act 1996 for reception and nursery classes in schools; section
122 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for settings
in receipt of nursery education funding for three and four year
olds, including playgroups, day nurseries, private nursery schools,
independent schools, childminder networks; and part XA of the
Children Act 1989 (as inserted by the Care Standards Act 2000)
for providers of daycare, who may also have funded nursery children.
Inspection teams for each type of inspection are selected, trained
and employed differently. It is very difficult to compare judgements
of foundation stage education provision across different sectors.
3.2 Is Ofsted giving sufficient weight to
partnership issues?
The foundation stage should be supported by
the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. ATL's
recent research (to be published in November) suggests that the
maintained sector is not represented on EYDCPs, and that the EYDCPs
delegate responsibility for education issues to the LEA. This
leaves reception classes, which should be the end point of the
foundation stage, without formal links to the rest of the foundation
stage. Should Ofsted inspect the infrastructure that supports
the foundation stage?
3.3 Ofsted should carry out joint inspection
of early years services, particularly in settings and schools
which offer an integrated service.
We are aware that there has been successful
experience of joint inspection of post-16 services, which could
be used to support joint inspection of early years services. We
recommend that Ofsted put in place plans for carrying out joint
inspections of services (including childcare, health etc), and
for carrying out inspections of the way the partnership is working—both
within the setting/school and in terms of wider support for teachers
and practitioners. These should ensure that education and care
services are better balanced.
4. IS OFSTED
HAVING ENOUGH
IMPACT?
4.1 Under the 2000 Framework Inspectors
had to report on:
"how efficiently and effectively the headteacher
and key staff lead and manage the school, promoting high standards
and effective teaching and learning";
the adequacy of staffing . . . highlighting strengths
and weaknesses . . . where they affect the quality of education
provided and the educational standards achieved;
and in determining their judgements inspectors
should consider the extent to which there is rigorous monitoring,
evaluation and development of teaching;
there is effective appraisal and performance
management;
specific grant is used effectively for its designated
purpose(s);
there is effective induction of staff new to
the school and the school is, or has the potential to be, an effective
provider of initial teacher training.
The Ofsted report has also been required to
report on:
"non-compliance with statutory requirements
where it detracts significantly from the quality and standards
of the school".
4.2 Yet Ofsted's Annual Report in 2003 reported
that in around half of the schools the needs of teachers in the
early stages of their careers were not properly identified or
addressed and that the training undertaken did not significantly
improve their teaching skills or their ability to contribute to
the development of their schools, nor did it reinforce their commitment
to teaching as a career. Of even greater concern to us is that,
despite the accountability framework Ofsted represents and the
legal and contractual responsibilities of headteachers, between
one quarter and one third of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) are
getting no professional development activities as part of their
induction, when this should be their entitlement, and 20% did
not receive all their reduced timetable, which headteachers are
contractually required to provide for them on the basis of a 10%
reduction of the timetable taught by classroom teacher colleagues
(see Totterdell et al (2002) "Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of the Statutory Arrangements for the Induction
of Newly Qualified Teachers", Research report No 338,
DfES).
4.3 We question whether Ofsted has had the
impact that could have been expected bearing in mind its intent
to report on such non-compliance with statutory requirements which,
in our view, must detract significantly from the quality and standards
of a school.
4.4 In addition, Ofsted's report "Leadership
and Management Training for Headteachers", April 2002,
reported one in 12 primary schools, one in 17 secondary schools
and one in 20 special schools with unsatisfactory or poor leadership
and management. In 2000-01 leadership and management was adjudged
good or better in only 74% of primary schools, 77% of secondary
schools and 78% of special schools. Furthermore, even where schools
were judged to be good overall there were fairly common areas
of weakness, amongst which was the delegation of appropriate tasks.
A further report, "Leadership and Management: What inspection
tells us", June 2003 also reports that, despite the fact
that appraisal is similarly subject to legislation, Regulations
and is a contractual duty of headteachers for which they received
targeted training, "the school's strategy for appraisal and
performance management are aspects of management which are still
in need of improvement in many schools". In 2001-02 this
was quantified as good or better in 56% of primary schools and
51% of secondary schools.
4.5 We, therefore, question whether Ofsted
has had a sufficient impact on these key contractual responsibilities
of headteachers and whether it will do so in the future.
4.6 Ofsted and "intelligent accountability"
The Government has recently developed the concept
of "intelligent accountability", which in our view should
be pre-eminently what Ofsted should be attempting to achieve.
But the Association is extremely concerned that such an expectation
is severely limited by two issues:
— the coherence of policies; and
— the timing of Ofsted revisions.
In particular and as an example we would like
to take what we regard as a key element of leadership and management:
the headteacher's responsibility for the continuing professional
development of teachers and support staff.
5. THE COHERENCE
OF GOVERNMENT
POLICIES
5.1 A key area of the inspection process,
we believe all would agree, is "how well is the school led
and managed". The definitions and expectations of school
leadership and management, however, appear to emanate from a variety
of sources.
5.2 Ofsted in the current Framework requires
its inspectors to report on "the quality of leadership, particularly
by the headteacher, senior team and other staff with responsibilities"
and "the effectiveness of management". Inspectors are
required to assess the extent to which a series of statements
is met. These include assessing the extent to which "leaders
inspire, motivate and influence staff and pupils"; "leaders
create effective teams"; "the performance management
of staff, including support staff, is thorough and effective in
bringing about improvement"; and "a commitment to staff
development is reflected in effective induction and professional
development strategies . . .". The thinking behind the revisions
to the Ofsted Framework appears to have resulted from Ofsted's
own observations and not from other evidence-informed research
(see 'Leadership and Management: What inspection tells us',
June 2003).
5.3 The DfES has recently issued for "consultation"
a paper on "Core Principles", (appended as annex 2).
This includes a section on "School Improvement", which
highlights:
"Build collective ownership through leadership
development", which inter alia includes reference
to "skills in managing change", building "widespread
ownership of the improvement process by creating an improvement
group . . . with membership drawn from different levels in the
school and reflecting a range of experience and perspectives across
the whole staff team"; and
"Create time for staff to learn together,
to make performance more consistent and effective across the school".
This section states that within school, variation on performance
on teaching and learning should be tackled "by creating a
professional learning community" and that headteachers should
"link this to the performance management process, and use
activities such as collective enquiry, peer observation and coaching,
since these are likely to have the maximum impact on teachers'
classroom practice."
5.4 The DfES has also recently announced
that, as part of the review of expenditure in 2004-05, Ministers
have decided that they want to concentrate on "action to
build school's capacity for effective professional development".
This action will include "more closely integrating CPD, performance
management and school improvement as key components of effective
whole school policies on teaching and learning, reflecting the
Core Principles and delivering personalized learning".
5.5 We question whether there is sufficient
coherence and consistency across these conceptions of leadership
for Ofsted to construct a commentary on the extent to which current
expectations of leadership and management are being met. If this
is not an issue of coherence then it may be one of the timing
of revisions to the Ofsted Framework.
5.6 The timing of Ofsted revisions
We regard it as unhelpful that a revised Framework
for Ofsted inspections is to be put into practice almost simultaneously
with a revision of the National Standards for Headteachers by
the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). Obviously there
are similar issues of coherence, but we want to emphasise here
the importance of prior consideration of the cycle of revisions
of the basis for inspection and self-evaluation. What, in our
view, is critical is that what Ofsted appears to inspect and value
is synchronous with the Standards promulgated in other areas.
It must surely be equally true that unless what is supported and
advocated in the Standards is recognized and rewarded by Ofsted
then the behaviours and practices related to the Standards may
be undermined and undervalued.
The draft revised National Standards emphasise,
for example, that:
— A willingness to engage in thinking
about the future is essential to effective headship and that headteachers
should know about futures thinking, local, national and global
trends; and new technologies, their use and impact.
— Headship is interpersonal and that
the headteacher must know about emotional intelligence; adult
learning, individual differences, and professional development
models; and the emotional and political aspects of the change
process for organizations and individuals; and
— Headteachers who invest in an authentic
and dynamic relationship with the community recognize their schools
as agents of social change and community regeneration.
Once these are in place, we believe, Ofsted
will need to radically revise the criteria against which it assesses
the quality and effectiveness of leadership and management. Yet
frequent revisions of the Framework must surely be costly and
an ineffective use of scarce resources.
5.7 Consequently, we recommend that the
Select Committee considers whether the Ofsted Framework and mode
of inspection is compatible with an evolutionary and rapidly changing
set of expectations of leadership and management and that Ministers
and the Department reflect on the coherence of the accountabilities
in relation to leadership and management that Ofsted is tasked
to inspect.
October 2003
| 
