Memorandum submitted by the Secondary
Heads Association (SHA)
1. SHA believes that inspection should become
a validation of the self-evaluation process in a school. Only
where this reveals evidence of under-performance should a full
inspection take place. For greater consistency and higher quality
of judgement, we believe that inspection teams should be led,
not by contracted part-timers, but by full-time HMI.
2. SHA welcomes the new Form S4 (the school's
self-evaluation) as a move towards the sort of inspection system
that it would wish to see.
3. The vast majority of inspections are
now carried out very professionally, but SHA remains unconvinced
about the process itself. The inspection process is inherently
unscientific, and is not really robust enough for the several
uses to which it is put. There is little or no evidence that it
actually does improve standards, though there are many claims.
There is insufficient quality control of the judgements that inspectors
make, influenced as they are by prior sight of statistical evidence
and by one another, as distinct from the conduct of the inspection
and compliance with the process. Although the latter aspects have
improved considerably they are secondary and there is still much
room for improvement. Many school leaders remain deeply concerned
about inconsistency in the inspection approach and the judgements
reached. Further work to improve this needs to be encouraged if
the system is to continue.
4. Although steps to reduce the burden of
inspection have been taken it is still a stressful process. The
development of forms pre-populated with data is a move to be welcomed,
as is the new provision of forms on the Ofsted website to encourage
schools to use them annually for their own purposes. If schools
do this, the pressure to complete forms to the deadlines required
will be eased.
5. The inspection handbooks are a useful
school improvement tool.
6. The pupil questionnaire, which in general
we welcome, has some weaknesses. Secondary schools which are being
inspected early in the year, having given the questionnaire to
all pupils, are finding that Year 7 pupils do not know enough
to answer some of the questions (like whether or not the homework
set is purposeful) because they do not have sufficient experience
of their new school. Their responses are not, however, separated
out in any way so that their judgements can be read in the light
of their relative inexperience. They tick the box which says that
they are in years 7-9. A simple modification to the form would
enable responses from new pupils to be identified by the registered
inspector. Presumably, students in year 12 are in the similar
position—they may not have had sufficient experience of
the sixth form to make well-founded judgements.
7. The publication of adverse reports does
not make it easy for a school to improve: their staffing problems
are increased (who will elect to work in a school which has been
publicly named and shamed?) and schools in special measures are
not allowed to employ NQTs.
8. One of the impediments to school improvement
can be a judgement in a particular subject department (on the
basis of limited evidence) which is markedly more favourable than
the view held by the headteacher on the basis of evidence gathered
over a longer period of time. In the context of a published report,
few school leaders will argue for lower gradings even when believing
that the judgements were too generous. When this happens, it increases
the resistance from individual teachers or departments towards
attempts by the headteacher to improve them, on the grounds that
Ofsted has said that they were sound or better.
9. There is some evidence that schools'
measured results often dip in the immediate post-inspection phase.
10. It continues to be the case that schools
drawing pupils from areas with high levels of social and economic
deprivation are the ones finding inspection the biggest challenge
and are the ones most likely to be placed in a failing category.
This is not to use the socio-economic circumstances of these pupils
as an excuse for underachievement, but schools that are apparently
similar often have significant differences between them and the
solutions are not as straightforward as is often implied.
11. Inspection needs to be much more tightly
related to the support required for school improvement. At the
moment, judgement and support are wholly separate processes. SHA
does not believe that this is the best use of these limited resources.
12. SHA is concerned about the reference
in reports to senior staff who have moved on before the school
is inspected, and whose work is criticised although they have
not seen or spoken with the inspection team. They may not be named
but by virtue of their previous role, they are clearly identifiable.
Contractors and registered inspectors should be given clear guidance
about this, and such staff should have a means of raising a complaint
if they feel that their reputation has been unfairly besmirched.
October 2003
| 
