Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants

  1.  The National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants offers the following comments on aspects of the current work of Ofsted to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, for consideration prior to its meeting with Mr Bell on 8 March 2004. NAEIAC, as the nationally-recognised professional body and trade union for educational inspectors, advisers and consultants, is committed to the belief that standards and quality of education can be improved through the intervention of professional inspection, advice, support, training and leadership, and enjoys regular contact and dialogue with HMCI and Ofsted on issues of current concern to inspectors and to LEAs, schools and colleges.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION

  2.  Our submission may be summarised as follows:

    —  The recently-published Ofsted proposals for a new school inspection model in England reflect an understandable emphasis on stronger school self-evaluation in the future, but also raise practical issues about how to actually achieve a reliable school self-review system, given the cultural changes this will require inside many schools. In addition, the new model needs to be designed and introduced in ways which respect the contribution of the present inspection workforce, and ensure that its expertise and experience is still utilised.

    —  HMCI's Annual Report on Standards and Quality in Education 2002-03 provides a positive description of the LEA contribution to school improvement, drawing on detailed inspection evidence, and this serves to underline the need for carefully identifying appropriate and closer linkage between the formal inspectorial role of Ofsted and the ongoing developmental role of LEA and other external school improvement services.

PROPOSALS FOR NEW SCHOOL INSPECTION MODEL

  3.  The Ofsted consultation paper "The Future of Inspection", published on 10 February, outlines proposals for a new model of school inspection in England, as foreshadowed in last autumn's Ofsted Strategic Plan 2004-07. HMCI's foreword rightly describes these as "radical" changes, and the document understandably emphasises the increasing importance of school self-evaluation in the ongoing debate over the design of an appropriate inspection system for the period ahead, firmly geared to wider governmental objectives for high standards and genuine accountability in education. As we stated in our last submission to the Select Committee on the work of Ofsted "NAEIAC has no doubts about HMCI's strong basic commitment to maintaining an independent and suitably rigorous school inspection regime" and this factor offers some reassurance as the system now evolves towards shorter, carefully focussed and more frequent Ofsted inspections based on reduced notice periods and a revised and strengthened school self-evaluation process.

  4.  HMCI has personally entered into useful discussions with NAEIAC representatives over the essential nature of this significant reform, with its specific implications for the current inspection workforce in England. The new model requires clear and sustained improvement in the quality of school self-review, which currently remains all too varied. This is an important objective, but the practical experience of our members tells us that introducing a genuinely reliable self-evaluation system, which accurately identifies the principal weaknesses as well as the specific strengths of individual schools and colleges, often involves serious internal cultural adjustment. This is especially relevant where a school retains a traditional, "authoritarian" headteacher leadership style, with the staff consequently wary of exposing problems and failures. The Ofsted consultation paper itself states "Many schools now undertake self-evaluation effectively; those which do not should be encouraged to do so", but does not specify how this key task should be organised and undertaken. This central point adds to the case for effective LEA and other external developmental services to support and challenge schools in adapting to stronger self-review arrangements. A national-level requirement for more detailed self-evaluation "tick-lists" will not suffice and even the best short inspections still only provide "snapshots" of a school at a given moment in its development, however useful as such, and cannot in themselves carry schools through the process of cultural change required.

  5.  The new and significant suggestion of a "more consistent approach to the inspection of education and care through the age range 0-19", resting throughout on the five key principles listed in paragraph 52 of the consultation paper, deserves serious interest and discussion by all relevant parties. It could assist in terms of recognising the significant practical implications for the future of the anticipated legislation to follow the recent Green Paper "Every Child Matters" and of the continuing encouragement for schools to embed themselves more actively in the life of their local communities, in various ways.

  6.  Ofsted retains specific obligations, however, to the workforce which has implemented and developed the current inspection system over the last decade, and gained considerable expertise in the performance of the formal inspectorial role in that process. Despite periods of mass media attention to school-based concerns over the system, relatively few formal complaints have actually been registered over the years and working relationships between school leaders and inspectors have often been good without detracting from the necessary rigour of the inspection itself. This is due to the professionalism and ongoing commitment of independent inspectors, and the newly proposed model, according to the Ofsted paper, "would be delivered in large part through independent inspectors, as now", but would clearly involve smaller numbers of these trained and experienced specialists and closer contact with HMI who will "often" lead the new inspection teams (paragraph 40).

  7.  This implies less total input, and reduced earnings opportunities, for these self-employed inspectors who have repeatedly worked long hours, for varying fee levels, in carrying the inspection process over the years, on the evidence of detailed NAEIAC surveys of the conditions under which they work. We will, therefore, be seeking detailed consultations over the precise impact of these intended changes on independent inspectors and on Ofsted's related promise "to involve them in a wider range of our work than is at present the case", in light of the statement that "Ofsted values the work done by its partners in the inspection market". The valuable expertise of these inspectors should not be lost as the system continues to evolve in new directions, and their morale and interest may falter if they feel that the school inspection market is to be less attractive in the future, in terms of work availability and income levels.

  8.  As we noted in our last submission to the Select Committee concerning Ofsted's activities, "a smooth transition to a revised, but rigorous, sensitive and cost-effective, school inspection model will require careful steps to avoid undue turbulence within an Ofsted market system already adapting to recent changes, and appropriate attention to the practical issues facing inspectors themselves".

OFSTED'S ANNUAL REPORT ON STANDARDS AND QUALITY IN EDUCATION 2002-03

  9.  A noteworthy feature of HMCI's Annual Report of Standards and Quality in Education 2002-03 is the positive description of the general LEA contribution to school improvement, based on recent inspection evidence. Page 91 of the report indicates that:

    —  "Educational planning for school improvement is improving, although some targets are unrealistic; school improvement strategies are at least satisfactory in all the LEAs inspected.

    —  LEAs perform their monitoring, challenge and intervention support roles increasingly well, particularly in targeting underperforming schools.

    —  Major initiatives in raising standards of literacy and numeracy and the Key Stage 3 Strategy have been well managed.

    —  The quality of management services is generally satisfactory, although that of property maintenance has remained persistently low in a third of LEAs.

    —  LEAs make good provision to promote the career training and development of teachers."

  10.  This encouraging report adds to our Association's longstanding and considered viewpoint that, in light of the government's overall strategy for higher standards and genuine accountability in education, a further Ofsted objective should be to carefully identify and secure appropriate and closer linkage between the formal inspectorial role of Ofsted and the ongoing developmental role of LEA and similar external school improvement services, since school improvement is, by nature, an ongoing process. In addition, more collaboration between schools is now increasingly encouraged and best sustained in practice through external facilitation by such local agencies. A suitably linked-up approach to overall school and college improvement is required for the future, to ensure continuing progress in raising standards.

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