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
|
