Memorandum submitted by NASUWT
1. The submission by NASUWT relates to the
annual report of the Chief Inspector of Schools on "Standards
and Quality in Education".
2. NASUWT is pleased to be invited to contribute
to the deliberations of the Education and Skills Committee. NASUWT
represents the interests of 223,500 members in schools and colleges
throughout the United Kingdom.
3. NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to comment
on the issues raised as a consequence of the last year of inspection.
However, the Association is also mindful that the Chief Inspector
has formally invited comments on changes to the inspection framework
which could be introduced from 2005. The Association takes the
view that notwithstanding the need for interim adjustments to
be made to the inspection framework, how inspectors are trained
and held accountable, and on other matters, there remains a need
for more comprehensive changes to be introduced in the interests
of the education system, pupils, parents and the public at large.
NASUWT does not comment in this submission specifically on the
most recent proposals issued by the Chief Inspector, as a separate
consultation process has been identified and since the Select
Committee has not specifically sought such comments. However,
the Association would be pleased to provide evidence to the Select
Committee at such other time as may be appropriate in respect
of the recent proposals to change the inspection framework.
4. NASUWT wishes to advise the Select Committee
of the following concerns regarding the work of Ofsted in the
2003 period.
5. The new inspection framework appears
designed to fail an increased number of schools as a result of
the highly regressive and inflexible nature of the targets applied
to the percentage of lessons that may be deemed "satisfactory".
6. The inspection framework requires that
schools provide an honest declaration of their strengths and weaknesses
through the pre-inspection review process. This process is designed
to target inspection more effectively whilst enabling inspection
teams to identify the extent to which schools have in place adequate
and appropriate arrangements to address any issues and whether
schools are in need of any additional support. However, the pre-inspection
self-evaluation process has been misused by inspection teams as
a shortcut to judging standards in schools to be weak. NASUWT
has learned that data from the pre-inspection school self-evaluation
process is used by some inspection teams to target lesson observation
in areas where a school has, through the self-evaluation process,
identified standards of teaching or learning to be "weak",
resulting in the over-inspection of particular lessons, the over-representation
of these lessons in the overall analysis of teaching and learning
in the school, and resulting in a negative but misleading judgement
applied to standards across the school as a whole.
7. Neither can it be claimed that the process
of school self-evaluation has added value to the inspection process.
Instead, it has resulted in a more costly and time-consuming process
for schools which has resulted in unwelcome and undeserved inspection
judgements. The use of the pre-inspection self-evaluation arrangements
must be seriously questioned. At the same time, NASUWT strongly
cautions against the extension of the self-evaluation element
of the inspection process.
8. The section 10 inspection framework has
resulted in the skewed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses
of individual schools, which is contradicted by other available
evidence on the performance of schools.
9. The introduction of the inspection framework
has shifted the goalposts for schools by changing the definition
of what constitutes satisfactory school performance. This has
been compounded by the effect of the Chief Inspector's remarks
in 2003 which questioned whether satisfactory is any longer good
enough. The Association asserts that these developments have impacted
adversely on the manner in which school inspection has been conducted
during the period since September 2003, and has contributed to
the rise in negative subjective interpretations of schools made
by inspection teams.
10. There has been a sharp rise in the number
of schools judged to have serious weaknesses or that have been
designated as requiring special measures since the introduction
of the new inspection framework. The Association recognises that
the increase in the proportion of schools in special measures/serious
weaknesses began in the term immediately prior to the new framework
coming into effect. However, the Association has received feedback
from LEAs and schools which suggests that this may be explained
by some inspection teams applying prematurely the new inspection
standards.
11. Recent comments made by the Chief Inspector
have fuelled a moral panic about declining educational standards
in schools. This has not helped to engender professional support
for the inspection process and may undermine public support for
state funded educational provision. Moreover, the overall trend
in inspection judgements has been greeted with cynicism and derision
from teachers and parents alike.
12. For the first time in a number of years,
the Association has cause to express concern about the quality
of the relationship between Ofsted and schools which, for many,
is, once again, no longer conducive to raising standards in schools.
13. The Association has received considerably
increased feedback from schools regarding the adverse workload
impact arising from the introduction of the new inspection framework
and the Chief Inspector's remarks on whether satisfactory is good
enough.
14. The Association has received feedback
of highly variable interpretations and judgements under the terms
of the new Inspection Framework.
15. There remains a need to improve the
quality and scope of training received by inspection teams, particularly
in relation to the expectations under the new inspection framework,
and the changing expectations of schools arising from the National
Agreement on "Raising Standards and Tackling Workload".
The Association has received no satisfactory evidence of training
provided to inspection teams to enable them to address the National
Agreement implications in a rigorous and consistent manner. Such
feedback as the Association has obtained suggests that many registered
inspectors remain unclear about the implications of the National
Agreement and a number do not accept that the Agreement is relevant
to the conduct of inspection.
16. The effectiveness of the quality assurance
processes within Ofsted requires further investigation. The Association
does not believe that any inspectors should be on the Ofsted register
who do not meet the standards set by the Chief Inspector and who
do not conform to the Code of Practice. The Association understands
that there has been a significant increase in the number of inspectors
who have been deregistered during the course of the past year,
confirming our concerns regarding variable standards of inspectorial
practice. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on Ofsted to ensure that
bad inspectors are not registered in the first place and that
they are not placed in a position in which they may inflict untold
damage on the schools they visit.
17. There remains a need for greater transparency
with regard to how breaches of the Code of Practice are monitored
and dealt with by Ofsted, and the reasons for deregistration.
This is an essential precondition for raising professional and
public confidence in the inspection process.
18. Furthermore, NASUWT recommends that:
(i)
a review of Ofsted be undertaken to take account
of its impact on educational standards and teacher workload in
schools and colleges;
(ii)
Ofsted should identify within the inspection framework
how it will reduce workload and bureaucracy in schools and colleges;
(iv)
the workforce remodelling agenda be firmly embedded
in the Ofsted framework and Section 10 inspection process;
(vi)
the private contracting system of inspection be replaced
with a smaller, permanent group of professional, qualified and
trained inspectors;
(x)
the costs and benefits of school self-evaluation
be evaluated in full consultation with the teacher associations
prior to any proposal to extend its use across schools.
February 2004
| 
