House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Sixth Report

4 Inspection and reporting

72. This Committee has received a number of submissions relating to the process and conduct of inspections, as well as the proposed changes to the inspection regime outlined in the consultation document The Future of Inspection. Ofsted's recent publication, A New Relationship with Schools confirms its intention to change the way in which school inspections are carried out as well as attempting "a co-ordinated approach to inspection 0-19",[66] embracing schools, colleges, LEA areas and early years settings. These proposed changes raise a number of questions, which we discussed with HMCI in our evidence sessions.

Early Years: Disclosure of Information

73. In last year's report, we expressed concern about the way in which Ofsted handles complaints against childcare providers. We noted that Ofsted has refused to make public the outcomes of its investigations and concluded that a change in the law might be necessary to allow parents to receive this information and thus to restore faith in the complaints process. We urged HMCI to act quickly to investigate which legal barriers existed and to propose alterations to the law.[67]

74. Over the past year, we have pursued the issue of the disclosure of information in complaints against early years providers. On 5 November, we asked Maurice Smith, Director of Early Years, what progress had been made. He told us:

"This is a difficult area for us and I would not wish to pretend to the Committee that it is not and indeed your Chairman has personally intervened in this area. There are two strands to it and I hope you will not mind me explaining a little bit of the detail. One is the complaints history of the institution or childminder. David [Bell, HMCI] has no power to publish a complaints history […] David's powers in terms of publications in the Early Years sector are very different from his powers in the schools sector […] His powers are constrained by the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. The other strand is that if a parent complains they do not get a decision from Ofsted that says that complaint is upheld or not upheld. What they get is a letter that says, 'This person continues to be suitable to provide day care', and that is actually not what they want. What they want is to know whether their complaint is justified or not. We cannot tell them that for the same reasons that I have described and we have delved deep and hard with government solicitors to find ways to change that. Your Chairman is very keen that we should do so and indeed has approached the Secretary of State about that. We have three strands of that approach. We would like to bring change about in primary legislation that would enable the Chief Inspector to report more widely and we are looking at the window that may present itself in terms of Every Child Matters. […] The second strand is that we can make some changes in the regulation […] the Department, with our advice and influence, is now consulting in two separate sections in the New Year about how we can extend this a bit. The third thing is that we can do something ourselves, if we can. The only thing that we found sensible to do is to bring in a voluntary scheme where, if the provider agrees, they can disclose the details of the complaint and its outcome. We brought that in mid-July and that is up and running now and we have had some response."[68]

75. We continued to press Ofsted on this matter and on 5 March 2004 we received a letter from HMCI stating that after discussions with his lawyers, he would be adopting a revised approach to the disclosure of information in complaints against childcare providers, which would mean that more information could be shared with parents who make a complaint and other parents whose children may be affected:

"Once I have completed my investigation of their complaint, I will write to them setting out details of how I looked into the matter, and what action was agreed with, or taken against, the provider as a result. I will also share that information on request with other parents who can demonstrate that they have a child in the setting."[69]

Information would still not be available publicly or to any individual who did not have a child in the setting, such as "a concerned bystander who witnesses an incident". HMCI added:

"The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is today launching a consultation on a package of revised regulations. I have asked the DfES to include in their consultation a change to the regulations that support the National Standards for Day Care and Childminding. This is to include a specific duty on all providers to keep a record of all complaints. At present, the requirement to keep a complaints record is listed as a supporting criterion to the national standards and, as such, is only something that providers must 'have regard to'. I believe that making it a specific duty on all providers to keep a record of complaints will enable Ofsted to examine that record routinely during inspection, and to include a summary of it in our inspection reports. The information given in the reports will show the number of complaints made since the last inspection, broadly what they related to, and whether the provider has resolved them satisfactorily."

76. We welcome recent developments that allow Ofsted to share information more widely in the case of complaints against childcare providers. We urge HMCI to pursue his discussions with the DfES on the possibility of changing the law so that information on complaints is routinely recorded and included in inspection reports.

Satisfactory

77. In the past year, Ofsted's use of the term 'satisfactory' to describe the quality of teaching has been the subject of a major public debate. Submissions to this Committee have detected a shift in the meaning of 'satisfactory', so that in the words of the NAHT, "a school whose teaching is satisfactory, and some better than satisfactory, [is] nevertheless being found to be under-achieving."[70] In last year's report we expressed our concern that "the apparent interpretation of the term satisfactory has shifted and caused confusion and concern among teachers and parents".[71]

78. In 2004, HMCI used his Annual Report to clarify that a school where the majority of teaching is 'satisfactory' with a minority of 'good' or better teaching would indeed be considered to be under-achieving:

"…it is right to say that satisfactory teaching is a general measure of acceptable competence. However, it is not a powerful enough engine to drive continued progress. Schools where satisfactory teaching is the norm are inadequately equipped to tackle the tough challenges we still face and which are described in this report."[72]

HMCI thus confirmed that the bar has been raised with regard to the proportion of 'satisfactory' teaching within a school that is considered adequate.

79. When we discussed the confusion over the term 'satisfactory' with HMCI, he told us that higher expectations in terms of teaching quality would lead to improvement:

"On the basis of our evidence—and that is what I report on—we have seen significant improvements in the quality of teaching over the past ten years. We have pushed out more to the margins unsatisfactory and poor teaching. As I said last year—and I return to the theme this year—if we are going to drive forward progress substantially to meet some of those existing and future challenges, satisfactory teaching may not be sufficient to bring that about. I think we have seen significant improvements in the quality of teaching, but there is still much that can be done to bring about improvement. When I say that people say that I am just dissatisfied and never happy, that I want the satisfactory to become good, but the story is quite encouraging: if teachers have been able to bring about those improvements that we have reported on, then surely they are capable of bringing out further improvements. That seems to me to be the encouraging news in this message. We should not always see the demand for satisfactory to become good and excellent as a negative, but to see it as a plus, as a way of driving forward more improvement in our education system."[73]

80. The recent confusion surrounding the definition of 'satisfactory' teaching is to be regretted. It has caused ill-feeling towards the inspectorate on the part of teachers and schools. We consider that Ofsted has now clarified what is expected of schools in terms of 'satisfactory' teaching. We hope that Ofsted has learnt from this experience that schools and school staff need to know exactly what is expected of them and the criteria against which they will be measured. It is important that this information is set out publicly in a clear and explicit form. We further hope that Ofsted will follow this model when informing institutions about the new inspection arrangements it proposes to implement.

A New Relationship with Schools

81. On 15 June 2004, Ofsted and the DfES published A New Relationship with Schools, setting out their plans for the future of inspection. The document claims to build on the responses to the earlier consultation document The Future of Inspection and on structured trials in 14 LEAs. It further asserts that a consensus has been built around its proposals: "LEAs and schools have welcomed the direction of reform, and formal responses to consultation have been overwhelmingly positive".[74] The main features of the proposed new inspection system are:

"shorter, sharper inspections that take no more than two days in a school and concentrate on closer interaction with senior managers in the school, taking self evaluation evidence as the starting point.
shorter notice of inspections, to avoid schools carrying out unnecessary pre-inspection preparation and to reduce the levels of stress often associated with an inspection. Shorter notice should also enable inspections to review the school in an environment much closer to the schools more usual working pattern.
smaller inspection teams with a greater number of inspections led by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors (HMI). Furthermore, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (HMCI) will be accountable for all reports, including those written by non-HMI led inspection teams.
more frequent inspections, with the maximum period between inspections reduced from the current six years to three years, though more frequently for schools causing concern.
more emphasis placed on the school's own self-evaluation evidence, as the starting point for inspection and for the school's internal planning, and as the route to securing the regular input and feedback from their users—pupils, their parents and the community—in the school's development.
a common set of characteristics to inspection across all phases of education from early childhood to 19.
a simplification of the categorisation of schools causing concern. We intend to retain the current approach to schools that need special measures and remove the labels of serious weakness and inadequate sixth form, replacing them with a new single category of improvement notice for schools where there are weaknesses in the progress of pupils or in key aspects of the school's work."[75]

82. The new inspection regime proposed by Ofsted responds to many of the deficiencies of the current system that we have identified in recent years and is to be warmly welcomed. Confidential submissions to the Committee have persistently complained about the burden of inspection. We are glad that Ofsted has recognised this as a problem and is taking this opportunity to reconsider its functions after ten years of inspection. Plans are clearly at an early stage of development, but we do feel able to highlight two issues which merit careful consideration by Ofsted—firstly, the increased role of self-evaluation and secondly the challenge of creating and implementing "a common set of characteristics to inspection across all phases of education from early childhood to 19". We set out our concerns regarding these areas below. Ofsted intends to issue more detailed proposals later this year and we look forward to discussing them with HMCI when we see him next in November.

Self-evaluation

83. A New Relationship with Schools proposes that inspection reports take their cue from a school's self-evaluation in order to ease the burden of inspection:

"The time is right to stimulate every school to embed strong self-evaluation in its day-to-day practice. We do not want to weigh down school self-evaluation with excessive bureaucracy. We intend to replace the current four forms with a new single self-evaluation form (SEF) which schools will be expected to keep up to date at least annually. This will be a standard form that captures data about the school that inspectors can use to inform their inspection visit. It will be for schools to develop their own process of self-evaluation and to fit the completion of the SEF into their core systems as best suits them. Ofsted and the DfES jointly will give very simple guidance on how schools can judge whether they are doing it well."[76]

84. This Committee has received a number of submissions discussing self-evaluation and its role in the inspection process. In common with many others, the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) welcomed the greater degree of trust implied by self-evaluation:

"We are gratified that Ofsted has decided to allow teacher education institutions' self-evaluation of their work to feature more prominently in the inspection process. In our view, just as the hallmark of the effective teacher is the commitment to self-evaluation with a view to enhanced performance, so the effective teacher education institution is one in which self-evaluation is embedded and internalised."[77]

85. The Secondary Heads Association (SHA) also welcomed this move, but warned that self-evaluation reports must be handled extremely skilfully by inspectors:

"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."[78]

86. When we asked HMCI whether the publication of the weaknesses institutions have identified was a disincentive to honest self-evaluation, he said:

"We would not want to undermine school self-evaluation because it is very important as a means of identifying how well a school knows its strengths and weaknesses and subsequently how well or how capable it is of improvement. I would not want, however, to run away with the notion that if there are weaknesses identified on the self-assessment that somehow inspectors should not look at them, because those weaknesses need to be assessed and one of the things that we have to think about for the future is whether we say more publicly about the school self-evaluation statement and the inspector's judgment […] we do want to look at those things which the school identifies as a strength and those areas where the school has identified a weakness so that we can say we agree with that but we are confident the school has put into place steps to address the issue. Where we would all be concerned is where a school presents a rosy picture of its circumstances which is not in any way born out by the evidence. […] Some people might interpret that as us just concentrating on the weaknesses; what I would say is that we are concentrating on a leadership problem that has failed to diagnose weaknesses and do something about them."[79]

87. Regular and honest self-evaluation is a hallmark of a well run institution. Ofsted's proposals to encourage all schools to make it part of their normal routine are therefore welcome. Our evidence has highlighted the sensitive nature of the self-evaluation process. Self-evaluation structures must be robust in detecting areas for improvement, yet schools must not be punished for identifying weaknesses where they have developed and implemented plans to deal with these problems. We look forward to seeing more detailed proposals on self-evaluation from Ofsted, which must address the sensitive nature of this procedure.

Consistency 0-19

88. In A New Relationship with Schools, Ofsted and the DfES propose the formulation of "a common set of characteristics to inspection across all phases of education from early childhood to 19".[80] We have noted a number of inconsistencies in the inspection frameworks applied to different age groups and services, which we have discussed with HMCI and his colleagues. Consistency across inspections is desirable, but in undertaking this wholesale reform, Ofsted will need to strike a balance between standardisation and the need to develop an inspection tool tailored to the particular setting to which it is being applied.

Grading

89. In contrast with its framework for school inspections, Ofsted grades day care provision for children up to eight on a three-point scale of 'unsatisfactory', 'satisfactory' and 'good'. In the introductory commentary to his Annual Report, HMCI states, "It is encouraging to report that the quality of care given by the great majority of child care providers is satisfactory or better".[81] This comment could give rise to confusion, given that HMCI has said that schools graded as largely 'satisfactory' would not be an "encouraging", rather, they would be considered to be under-achieving.

90. LEAs are also assessed on an alternative scale with seven points, ranging from 'very good' 'good', 'highly satisfactory' and 'satisfactory' to 'unsatisfactory', 'poor' and 'very poor'. Ofsted's Annual Report states that "the performance of most LEAs inspected in 2002-03 was at least satisfactory, and highly satisfactory in over half".[82] It is not clear to us why LEAs need to be graded on a seven-point scale, whereas day care providers can be accurately assessed according to a much less sophisticated three-point scale.

91. We asked HMCI whether 'satisfactory', in relation to LEAs, means the same as 'satisfactory' in relation to schools or to day care providers. He told us that Ofsted was working towards a common framework:

"There is a perennial debate within Ofsted about grading scales and what different terms mean. I think the same argument might apply, and that is to say that where LEAs are achieving a level of competence we may describe as satisfactory, we also use the perhaps confusing terminology highly satisfactory as well in relation to LEAs. We know in those areas where LEAs have most influence, it is good provision that makes the difference. I would not pretend that we have absolute consistency in either our grading schemes or our terminology. It is something we are going to look at under The Future of Inspections, to try to get the kind of consistency required so that we do not end up having to feel a bit embarrassed when we are asked the sort of question you have just asked us."[83]

92. We agree with Ofsted that there is merit in developing a more consistent grading system across different types of inspection. A common currency would make terms like 'satisfactory' much less confusing and much more accessible to all. However, the growing range of services for which Ofsted is the lead inspectorate can only complicate this task, particularly in the case of the new responsibilities for children's services, which range from youth justice to healthcare. A consistent inspection framework should not do away with distinctions which are necessary to ensure that the inspection system is fit for purpose. We therefore look forward to seeing Ofsted's plans for a common set of characteristics and to discussing them with HMCI in November this year.

Context

93. Ofsted's inspection of post-16 provision is an area where the inspectorate is particularly interested in developing a common inspection framework. HMCI told us:

"We do not think that is going to cause us huge difficulties. We think there is an important principle there and I have to say it is one which people have commented on. Post-16 education is—to use that rather ugly word—delivered in a number of different settings from school sixth forms which are inspected under Section 10 arrangements at the moment, through to post-16 in sixth form colleges, general further education colleges and specialist colleges. We do think there is some logic there in bringing together our work under a common inspection framework."[84]

94. The development of a common framework will be particularly important as Ofsted continues to carry out area-wide inspections which take in post-16 provision. Last year, Ofsted completed four 14-19 area inspections. Its conclusions are largely critical. The Annual Report finds that "the statutory framework does not set out clearly the respective responsibilities of LEAs and local LSCs for developing 14-19 education",[85] citing the considerable autonomy of individual schools and the absence of incentives for collaboration. It concludes that "there are few signs of an effect on the patterns of provision […] Planning is focused mainly on the interests of the individual institutions rather than the needs of students, employers or the community".[86]

95. Ofsted has recently implemented a new framework for area inspection and its first few inspections appear to place considerable emphasis on area-wide strategies and objectives which are shared by LEAs and LLSCs. In contrast, Ofsted's section 10 inspections of schools generally have little to say about the area-wide context. The submission of the National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants (NAEIAC) to this Committee suggests that Ofsted's own inspection regime therefore militates against collaboration and co-operation:

"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 […]A suitably linked-up approach to overall school and college improvement is required for the future, to ensure continuing progress in raising standards".[87]

96. We asked HMCI why his inspections of individual schools or colleges place little weight on the institution's participation in area-wide networks and strategies. He told us:

"I think it is our job to report on the outcomes. […] It should be our job to say what outcomes are being secured for the pupils in this institution. I think the pattern of sixth form education—or post-16 education more generally—is going to be rather interesting. I do point out in the Annual Report, based on a very small sample of 14 to 19 area inspections, it is difficult to see where the leadership is coming from to bring about the kind of provision that is going to meet the needs of all pupils. I think that is what we can do. Again, that is based on outcomes: what is best for the pupils rather than this is a fixed opinion over the nature of the organisation of institutions."[88]

97. The encouragement of area-wide co-operation between schools, colleges and private providers of work-based training is a key element of the Government's Skills Strategy. At present, there are inconsistencies in Ofsted's inspection framework for post-16 institutions that appear to conflict with this integrated aim. We understand that Ofsted is developing a new framework for post-16 inspections and we urge HMCI to consider carefully how this framework will join up with area inspections, for which it has only recently instituted a new regime. Ofsted's judgement of school sixth forms and other post-16 institutions must take account of the collaborative setting in which they are now expected to work.

98. Although work is necessary to integrate Ofsted's individual inspections of different types of institution into a context of area-wide collaboration, we have received some submissions calling for a greater degree of differentiation in assessments, even where they are made of the same type of institution. Some of our evidence has urged Ofsted to be more sensitive, when carrying out its inspections, to the context within which an institution is working and to tailor its judgements accordingly, rather than applying a 'one size fits all' measure.

99. Representatives of Further Education (FE) colleges have told this Committee that the context in which an individual FE college is working should be taken into account by inspectors. Ofsted's inspection of FE institutions concluded that "most provision is satisfactory or better; although almost one in ten of the colleges inspected is inadequate".[89] Commenting on the report, HMCI said, "continued weaknesses in teaching in further education colleges still give cause for concern, especially in work-based learning and provision for learning in basic literacy and numeracy".[90] The submission of the Association of Colleges found this judgement misleading and called for changes to the inspection regime, suggesting that:

"The large and vital contribution made by many colleges to widening participation, combating social exclusion and delivering the objectives of Success for All is rarely reflected in the grades for such colleges […] Inspectors do not recognise partial achievement. Retention and achievement of a qualification are sometimes dependent on factors outside a college's control and must no longer be used as the sole measures of the effectiveness of provision'.[91]

100. In last year's report, we urged Ofsted to continue to develop more sensitive 'value-added' measures to recognise the context of partial achievement within which many FE colleges operate. Ofsted's response to the report stated, "we are continuing to work with DfES and the LSC to develop a basket of performance measures, including value-added measures, which reflect better than current indicators the range and diversity of work undertaken by FE".[92] We asked HMCI what progress has been made in this area:

"We have said to this Committee, and it is something that I can repeat today, that we are very sensitive to the issue of getting a better basket of indicators to enable us to make proper comparisons between different kinds of post 16 provision. We said last year in the Annual Report that generally speaking sixth form colleges and school sixth forms in achievement terms will do better than general Further Education colleges but we immediately went on to say that they are serving different sorts of populations. I will not pretend we have got there yet but the task is to try to find an appropriate basket of measures. The one slight concern about the AoC submission is the suggestion that this is the case everywhere, it is not the case everywhere, we know some general Further Education colleges are more successful in meeting the needs of students and helping students to remain in education than in others. I think we are right and I should acknowledge the work that we are doing to try to get a better set of indicators but we should not suggest that somehow all FE colleges are the same and because one college is not very successful at retaining students that applies in every case because it certainly does not."[93]

101. We hope that Ofsted will soon be able to report concrete progress in its development of more sensitive indicators for the inspection of FE colleges. Despite repeated reassurances from HMCI that work is in hand, it is not clear from published documents whether the changes to school inspection outlined in The Future of Inspection will be matched by reforms to the inspection regime in the college sector.

66 The future of inspection, p.15. Back

67 Education and Skills Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2002-03, The Work of Ofsted, HC 531, paragraph 20. Back

68 Q 51 Back

69 Ev 55 Back

70 Ev 41, paragraph 2a. Back

71 Education and Skills Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2002-03, The Work of Ofsted, HC 531, paragraph 13. Back

72 Commentary, p 2. Back

73 Q 105 Back

74 Department for Education and Skills, A New relationship with schools, Foreword, p 1. Back

75 ibid, p 5. Back

76 ibid, p 7. Back

77 Ev 82 Back