Memorandum submitted by the Secondary
Heads Association
SHA acknowledges that the current inspection
framework's clear emphases on learning and teaching and on the
monitoring and evaluation of these by school leaders give it the
potential to contribute to the raising of standards in secondary
schools and it is in the context of a desire to encourage school
improvement that the following comments are offered.
SUMMARY
— the emphasis on school self-evaluation
is welcomed but the publication of weaknesses impedes honest self-evaluation
(paragraph 1);
— the sharing of the pre-inspection
commentary is welcomed but there needs to be adequate time for
the school to respond to it and a procedure for ensuring that
errors in this commentary are corrected or the inspection team
(paragraphs 2 and 3);
— the benchmark tables published in
the Handbook for the inspection of secondary schools have
increased expectations to which schools were given no time to
adjust (paragraph 4);
— the idea that judgements which are
mostly satisfactory are together unsatisfactory is confusing (paragraph
5);
— in measuring progress from the previous
inspection, like is not being compared with like (paragraph 6);
— complaints from SHA members about
the process of inspection have risen dramatically since the new
framework was introduced in September 2003 (paragraph 7);
— there is a widespread perception
amongst our members that inspection is now much more aggressive
and leaves heads and staff feeling demoralised and demeaned (paragraph
8);
— there is also a widespread perception
that inspection is now more negatively biased and that heads are
being held accountable for issues which are beyond their control
(paragraphs 9 and 10);
— SHA has concerns about inconsistencies
in inspections (paragraph 11);
— the "snapshot view" can
impede rather than enhance school improvement (paragraph 12);
— a reluctance to use Ofsted's complaints
procedure means that its use is not a clear indicator of levels
of dissatisfaction with the inspection process (paragraph13);
and
— SHA acknowledges that many inspectors
carry out their function within the published Code of Conduct
but the current levels of concern are not helpful in improving
our schools (paragraph14).
1. Schools see the focus on school self-monitoring
and evaluation as very helpful to the improvement process and
the Form S4 (self-evaluation report) has been warmly welcomed.
The process required to complete the form is only truly valuable,
however, if schools are scrupulously honest with themselves and
are prepared to identify and analyse weaknesses as well as strengths.
The difficulty is that the weaknesses identified are then made
public. This can seriously damage a school and does not contribute
to improved performance. Some inspection teams are also misusing
the self-evaluation by concentrating on areas of known weakness
(see below), which also provides a powerful incentive to write
not an honest report but one intended to play to its readers.
There is a danger of this essentially useful approach being undermined
before it has really become established.
2. The sharing of the pre-inspection commentary
with schools is welcome but the time-scale given for school response
is often too short (as little as two working days). These commentaries
sometimes have gross errors. The pre-inspection commentary should
arrive at least five working days in advance of the inspection.
3. The relatively late arrival of the pre-inspection
commentary has given rise to another concern: where the pre-inspection
commentary contains errors, the errors are often not corrected
for inspection team members. In one particular case, the misinterpretation
of school data in the pre-inspection commentary left our member
feeling that the negative view this gave inspectors in the team
affected the whole inspection especially as the error was not
corrected in the minds of inspectors at the start of the inspection
week or, for that matter, at any other time.
4. There is no doubt that the September
2003 framework has raised the levels that schools must meet. A
major factor in this has been the introduction of benchmark tables
with their grade descriptors and schools should have been given
time to assimilate these before the new inspection regime came
into effect. These level descriptors are a major contribution
to what Her Majesty's Chief Inspector defines as the clearer focus
of the new inspection. For schools though, it is equivalent to
being entered for an examination without having had sufficient
time to adjust to a significantly changed syllabus.
5. The statement to the effect that "If
a department or a school is judged to be mostly `satisfactory',
it is unlikely to be `satisfactory'" continues to confuse.
The "mostly satisfactory" implies, we are told, that
there is unlikely to be sufficient aspiration in the department
or the school—in which case, it is difficult to understand
how a satisfactory judgement was awarded in the first place.
6. These raised expectations mean that in
the process of seeking to identify improvement from the previous
inspection, like is not being compared with like. Under the previous
framework, for example, "satisfactory" meant "satisfactory"
and the higher grades, being less tightly defined and more open
to the judgement of individual inspectors, were less difficult
to achieve.
7. The number of complaints SHA receives
from members about the processes of inspection has risen dramatically.
These complaints do not only come from schools unhappy with the
final judgement but also include schools that have been judged
good, very good or very effective. Under the previous framework,
complaints about process had become rare and there was a general
perception among our members that inspection teams had become
adequately professional in their approach.
8. The widespread perception is now that
there is a more aggressive approach by inspection teams. There
has been an increase in the number of complaints about inspectors
not following the code of conduct for inspectors published on
page 3 of the Handbook for inspecting secondary schools.
In particular we have had complaints about inspectors not "treating
all those they meet with courtesy and sensitivity", failing
to "do all they can to minimise the stress on those involved
in the inspection" and not maintaining a "purposeful
and productive dialogue with those being inspected". Calls
to SHA about inspection frequently refer to members of staff being
left demoralised and demeaned by the process.
9. Many calls now also refer to the perception
that inspection since September has become more negatively biased.
Since September 2003 there are frequent reports of Registered
Inspectors arriving prejudiced against a school and battening
on to any and every weakness to the exclusion of strengths, which
are acknowledged grudgingly if at all. Often this view emerges
as schools talk about the over-representation in lessons sampled
of those taught by short-term teachers and supply staff. It seems
that it is not unusual for this to occur particularly at the start
of the inspection week, the negative impact of the initial negative
messages never being balanced. This has led to a real fear in
the way many secondary headteachers now approach inspection. Teacher
recruitment is a national issue and headteachers feel that through
inspection they are now being held accountable for something beyond
their control. They do not feel that their leadership is being
tested to see whether, in the light of recruitment difficulties,
they have made the best arrangements possible but rather that
the focus on the quality of teaching and learning in the classrooms
of these teachers puts both their school and their own continued
employment at risk.
10. Teachers are aware that in the inspection
of individual lessons, lessons disrupted by "difficult"
individuals will fail. Some of the children assigned to schools
under the drive for inclusion are particularly challenging. The
Ofsted lesson inspection process makes no allowances for the presence
of such children. In these circumstances, the way in which the
new benchmark table level descriptors (table 11 of the Handbook)
are being applied seems to leave less room for an individual inspector's
judgement than previously. Again, SHA members feel that they are
being held accountable for situations that are beyond their control.
This is not to argue with judgements identifying poor teaching
as a reason for misbehaviour but to state that there are situations
where the teaching itself is not the issue and where teachers
themselves are the victims of disturbed and volatile young people.
It is often in schools facing the biggest struggles to improve
their own quality and reputation where this difficulty is most
often acute: they are often under-subscribed and, as a consequence,
are required to admit a disproportionate number of pupils excluded
from other schools.
11. Notwithstanding the limits on individual
inspectors' judgements identified above, SHA continues to have
concerns about consistency between individual inspectors and individual
teams. For example, one team required Individual Education Programmes
to be made subject specific (ie each department must write the
IEP in its own terms) before IEPs would be judged satisfactory.
Or an individual inspector told a teacher that the lesson as a
whole might well have been very good but the evidence in the part
of the lesson she saw only enabled her to judge it "good"
(it was not the teacher's fault that the inspector could only
stay for part of the lesson). It is only since September 2003
that complaints such as these have become frequent from our members.
12. One of the examples we have given is
the ground for another complaint: that the inspection process
gives only a snapshot and elements of the school may be seen either
at their best or at their worst during the inspection week. It
is not unusual for a weak teacher or department with whom a head
is working for improvement to be judged as satisfactory or better
in the "snapshot view". Not infrequently, this becomes
a hindrance to progress. One might argue that the head should
have declared the weakness but we refer again to the difficulty
faced when such honesty leads to a public statement.
13. SHA members are reluctant to use the
Ofsted complaints procedure. During the inspection there is a
real fear that a complaint will have a negative impact on the
final report; afterwards, members feel that they are unlikely
to alter the judgements and that the process will simply involve
them in work which will not bring any benefit to anyone in their
school. Certainly, very few want to open themselves up to the
possibility of even more inspection by HMI. This means that the
current levels of official complaint do not give an accurate assessment
of the degree of discontent.
14. SHA would not deny that there are many
registered inspectors and team inspectors of high quality who
seek to carry out their function within the published code of
conduct but our records clearly indicate that there is, currently,
a high level of concern about, even fear of, the new approach
to inspection. SHA does not believe that this works in the best
interest of raising levels of attainment and achievement in our
schools.
February 2004
| 
