Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 28 September 2004