Memorandum submitted by NUT (OAR 2)
OFSTED ANNUAL
REPORT
I thought that it would be helpful if I sent
you a letter setting out some questions which arise from the HMCI
report for 2003-04. It is a detailed report and the questions
set out below are not inclusive. There are other, equally pertinent,
questions that arise from the report.
Commentary
1. On page 8 HMCI status that the Government's
"focus on the `basics' has been an important success story
for the education system."
— How would HMCI reconcile this view
with that which he expressed in last year's Annual Report, that
"the gulf between what pupils achieve in the core subjects
and in the rest of the curriculum remains a concern"? Would
HMCI agree that "focus on the `basics'" has been the
reason for this continuing achievement gap?
2. On page 10 HMCI proposes that national
or local government should "intervene more quickly and apply
tried and tested methods and leadership that work elsewhere"
in the case of underperforming schools.
— How would HMCI resolve the tension
between this statement and the autonomy of schools enshrined in
such statutory guidance as the Code of Practice for LEA-School
Relations?
— What evidence does HMCI have that
"tried and tested methods and leadership" can be simply
transferred from one school to another successfully, regardless
of school context?
— What impact does HMCI believe these
comments would have on teachers, particularly those working in
schools in challenging circumstances?
3. HMCI uses the commentary to emphasise
that "the perspective of parents is also vital" to the
Ofsted inspection process (page 6).
— How does HMCI reconcile this statement
with the arrangements for consulting parents in the new inspection
framework, that is, the discontinuation of the lead inspector's
meeting with parents and the significant reduction in time in
which parents would be able to complete and return questionnaires?
Childcare and funded early education
4. In relation to early education, HMCI
reports that "in poor settings, the quality of teaching is
almost always poor" (paragraph 15).
— Would HMCI expand on this finding,
in particular, any identified relationship between the quality
of teaching and the employment of qualified early years teachers?
— Is there any correlation between
this finding and particular types of early years setting and/or
practitioner?
5. The majority of this section focuses
on childcare: only four of the 26 paragraphs in this chapter are
concerned with publicly funded early education provision.
— Would HMCI explain why early education
has received significantly less coverage than childcare in this
year's Annual Report?
— Would HMCI agree that "education"
and "childcare" serve related, but different, needs
and purposes?
— Based on the available evidence,
what impact does HMCI believe the introduction of an entitlement
for three and four year olds to "educare" rather than
education will have on children's development?
Primary and nursery schools
6. HMCI reports that achievement continues
to be better in the core subjects than in the foundation subjects
(paragraph 30) and that teaching continues to be strongest in
core subjects and for Year 6, whilst weakest in Years 1, 3 and
4 and the majority of foundation subjects (paragraph 34).
— How does HMCI account for the variation
in pupils' and teachers' performance for core and foundation subjects?
— Would HMCI agree that the national
focus on the core subjects is now counter-productive, in that
schools' energies and resources have become unbalanced in many
schools, leading to poorer quality provision in the foundation
subjects?
— Why has the amount of space devoted
to reporting performance in the foundation subjects been reduced
in this year's main report?
7. Over the past year, the Government have
placed particular emphasis on "personalised learning",
encouraging schools to develop imaginative ways of addressing
the learning needs of pupils whilst eschewing any form of national
guidance or directive. HMCI considers that schools' work on personalised
learning to date is "piecemeal" (paragraph 36).
— To what does HMCI attribute this
finding?
— How would HMCI suggest that Government
promote and develop personalised learning in future?
— What does HMCI understand by "personalised
learning"?
— Will Ofsted be undertaking a thematic
survey of this topic in the future?
8. HMCI finds that problems with teachers'
planning occur typically when National Strategy "unit plans
and other guidance" are followed "too rigidly",
so that pupils' needs are not met (paragraph 37).
— How does HMCI reconcile this finding
with those of individual inspection teams, which frequently criticise
teachers for not following these materials closely enough?
— Does HMCI intend to revise the joint
DfES/QCA/Ofsted guidance on planning in light of these findings?
9. HMCI flags up a number of issues about
the deployment of teaching assistants, including "are sometimes
not involved enough in discussing outcomes with teachers"
and "simply keeping pupils engaged rather than helping them
to make good progress in their learning" (paragraph 38).
— How would HMCI suggest that such
problems should be addressed in practical terms?
— Would HMCI agree with the recommendation
in the Bullock report that "remedial work is not for the
inexperienced or indifferent teacher, but for the teacher who
combines a high level of teaching skill with an understanding
of the children's emotional and developmental needs"?
— Would HMCI agree that the model of
teacher and teaching assistant working together in the classroom
provides the most effective means of supporting pupils?
10. HMCI reports that "time for practical
work and field work is threatened where there is a heavy emphasis
on content and knowledge at the expense of opportunities for pupils
to develop and apply their skills" (paragraph 47).
— Would HMCI expand on this statement?
In particular, is HMCI suggesting that the content of the National
Curriculum subject orders should be reduced in order to enable
pupils to develop and apply their skills?
— Does HMCI believe that the above
findings provide firm evidence of an unacceptable narrowing of
the primary curriculum in the majority of schools, due to an over-emphasis
on end of Key Stage tests and results?
— Would HMCI agree that there is a
connection between this finding and that in paragraph 48, "an
over-reliance on extra literacy lessons, such that literacy dominates
timetables"?
11. HMCI's Annual Report draws attention
to the finding that "accommodation is inadequate in almost
a tenth of schools and slightly more so for children in the Foundation
Stage" (paragraph 49).
— Would HMCI expand on this finding,
in particular, the resources necessary for schools to rectify
this situation and the current Government policy regarding the
sale of school playing fields?
— What steps does HMCI believe are
necessary to ensure that all reception classes have access to
appropriate outdoor play facilities?
— Given this finding, to what extent
does HMCI think schools will be able to meet the requirement to
offer before and after school childcare, as proposed by the Government's
10 Year Childcare Strategy?
12. In relation to the Foundation Stage,
HMCI suggests that there is a clear relationship between the quality
of teaching and inappropriate practice, such as "an undue
haste for children to write a sentence before they can say one"
(paragraph 55).
— On the basis of the evidence held
by Ofsted, does HMCI believe that there is a link between the
qualifications and experience of staff and such practices?
— Would HMCI agree that such inappropriate
practices are often due to top-down pressure in relation to performance
in the Key Stage 1 tests?
13. HMCI notes that the Foundation Stage
Profile "has created further assessment demands and teachers
are generally not clear enough about its purposes or value"
(paragraph 60).
— Would HMCI agree that the weaknesses
of the Profile are more concerned with the bureaucracy associated
with it, rather than its methodology and principles?
— What improvements would HMCI suggest
should be made to the Profile, in order to make it more useful
to teachers?
14. HMCI reports that "few schools
have made substantial changes" in response to the Primary
Strategy document "Excellence and Enjoyment"(paragraph
61). He suggests that this is due to "teachers have neither
sufficient enthusiasm nor the robust subject knowledge" required
to implement a more creative approach to the primary curriculum
(paragraph 62).
— To what extent does HMCI believe
this is due to the pressure on schools to meet national performance
targets for Key Stage 2?
— What national initiatives can HMCI
identify which have been introduced to address his long-standing
concern about teachers' subject knowledge?
— What evidence does HMCI have that
primary teachers are not "enthusiastic" about the approach
advocated in "Excellence and Enjoyment"? How would he
distinguish between practical constraints on teachers and enthusiasm?
15. Weaknesses in assessment, particularly
formative assessment, are identified as a common feature of primary
practice in the report. Although applicable to all subject areas,
such weaknesses were most likely to be found in foundation subjects
(paragraph 40). HMCI returns to this theme at the end of this
chapter, where he says that there is "insufficient emphasis
on assessment for learning" (paragraph 67).
— To what does HMCI attribute this
finding?
— Would HMCI agree that until very
recently, the national priority has been on summative assessment?
— What measures does HMCI believe are
needed to improve teachers' use of formative assessment?
— Would HMCI acknowledge the time constraints
and workload implications of assessment for learning practices?
— What assurance can HMCI give that
schools would not be penalised by Ofsted inspection teams for
failing to mark every piece of a pupil's work in depth, in order
to accommodate the demands of assessment for learning feedback
practices?
16. HMCI notes that "some national
initiatives are beginning to have a positive effect. For example,
the Excellence in Cities programme is providing schools with the
impetus and funding to meet the needs of gifted and talented,
as well as vulnerable, pupils. The School Sport Partnerships programme
has increased the breadth and balance of curricular opportunities
for targeted groups, for instance by providing multi-skills camps.
These are residential courses where talented pupils can develop
and refine their skills. They also learn how to improve the quality
of their work by developing their skills of observation and evaluation"
(paragraph 72).
— Could HMCI expand on how the needs
of vulnerable pupils are catered for within the "gifted and
talented" framework?
— Does HMCI suggest that pupils who
are gifted are not talented?
— Does the classification of a pupil
as "talented" indicate a pre-determination for vocational
training within the revised 14-19 framework?
17. HMCI reports that "in the most
effective schools, EAL co-ordinators are well trained, provide
good leadership and play an important role in developing the expertise
of other staff. In these schools the needs of the more advanced
bilingual pupils are fully analysed and met" (paragraph 79).
— Would HMCI take this success as a
basis to review and strengthen the role and status of EAL staff
in schools?
— Would HMCI agree that the work undertaken
by teaching and learning support assistants in schools should
not just be formally recognised in a nationally agreed grading
structure but also be supported with a targeted budget for local
authorities?
18. HMCI observes about asylum-seeking pupils
that "many of these pupils make good progress after a relatively
short time in the school, particularly where the difficulties
that they face are understood and recognised (. . .). Staff funded
by the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG) make a vital contribution
in supporting asylum-seeker pupils and in providing valuable training
in schools" (paragraph 81).
— Would HMCI agree that the educational
success of asylum-seeking pupils calls for a drastic reduction
in the waiting time of these students for an appropriate place
in school or college?
— Would HMCI concur that the evidence
of asylum-seeking pupils' progress in mainstream education demands
a rethink of the legislation on the education of asylum-seeking
children in accommodation centres?
— Given that the recognition of the
needs of asylum-seeking pupils is central to the latter's educational
achievement, would HMCI support the establishment of a targeted
grant for the education of refugee and asylum-seeking pupils?
19. HMCI states that "Traveller pupils
also make satisfactory progress in lessons, but this is not sustained
over time. This is because their attendance rate is low, the worst
for any minority group" (paragraph 82).
— If the low attendance rate of Traveller
pupils is crucial to their educational success, as HMCI's report
suggests, would HMCI support the rigorous implementation of the
Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant 2005-06 to the effect that
there will be sufficient as well as sufficiently equipped sites,
together with security of tenure, for Traveller communities?
— Would HMCI agree that existing school
admissions policies need to be reviewed with a view to ensuring
the reservation of a certain number of vacant places in each school
for highly mobile pupils?
— Would HMCI encourage the development
of nationally accredited distance learning modules to ensure continuity
of learning for Traveller pupils?
— Has HMCI commissioned any research
into the causes of the low attendance rate of Traveller pupils?
20. HMCI reports that "the best achieving
groups are those from Chinese backgrounds, followed by pupils
of Indian, then Irish heritage. The pupils who perform consistently
below the national average are of Bangladeshi or Pakistani heritage,
although Bangladeshi pupils are closing the performance gap more
rapidly" (paragraph 84).
— Does HMCI have any explanations for
the low performance of Bangladeshi and Pakistani pupils?
— Could HMCI expand on the comparatively
high performance of Chinese pupils vis-a"-vis Bangladeshi
pupils as well as in relation to white pupils?
Secondary schools, including sixth forms
21. HMCI observes that "a clear stand
on race equality, understood and appreciated by pupils and parents,
contributes to a productive climate for learning, enabling minority
ethnic and bilingual pupils to achieve well. An HMI survey of
schools that made the best use of the Ethnic Minority Achievement
Grant showed that effective partnership teaching between a mainstream
teacher and a specialist in English as an additional language
(EAL) was a key feature in raising pupils' attainment and contributing
to teachers' professional development" (paragraph 100).
— Could HMCI identify and disseminate
examples of good practice as manifestations of a clear stand on
race equality?
— Would HMCI comment on the tension
between the importance of staff funded by EMAG and the de facto
funding cuts faced by one third of all local authorities due to
the new EMAG funding formula 2005-06?
22. HMCI states that "students are
still being recruited to courses [at advanced level] that are
inappropriate" (paragraph 103). The NUT shares Ofsted's concern
on this issue.
— Does HMCI have any specific views
on implications for the funding of post 16 courses, and the systems
to provide advice to students, which could help ensure that students
are recruited to programmes which best meet their needs and aspirations,
and in which they are able to meet their potential?
23. HMCI summarises that "the gap in
achievement between schools with high and low level of disadvantage
continues to be wide. A minority of schools with high levels of
disadvantage markedly reduce their adverse effects. These schools
demonstrate what can be done through high calibre leadership and
management that promote and support high expectations and insist
on consistent, high quality practice." (Key points, page
36.)
— Does HMCI suggest that the achievement
gap between schools with high and low levels of disadvantage is
fundamentally due to the quality of leadership and management?
24. HMCI's Annual Report states that "the
use of assessment remains a weakness in both key stages [3 and
4] and varies across subjects. Schools with good or better assessment
are still in a minority . . . Overall the use of assessment in
responding to individual needs is unsatisfactory in well over
a tenth of schools" (paragraph 112).
— Does HMCI consider that a review
of the aims, purposes and nature of National Curriculum Assessment,
similar to that undertaken in the Daugherty Review in Wales, would
have the potential to improve any current weaknesses in assessment?
— Does HMCI agree that improvements
to assessment must be supported by the provision of professional
development opportunities for teachers, and that the teaching
profession itself needs to take responsibility for improvements
to assessment?
— Does HMCI believe that "high
stakes" formal assessments, such as end of key stage tests,
may in some respects have become obstructive to the development
of excellence of practice in developing assessment systems in
schools which contribute effectively to children's learning?
25. The observation is made that "the
breadth of the curriculum is more often very good or better at
Key Stage 4 than Key Stage 3, but also more often unsatisfactory"
(paragraph 118).
— Does HMCI believe that recent reforms
to increase flexibility at Key Stage 4 have helped or hindered
the provision of curriculum breadth?
— What does HMCI think would represent
an appropriate entitlement for every learner in Key Stage 4? Should
a programme of study require, for example, an element of learning
in humanities, science/technology, or modern foreign languages?
— Is the fact that subjects such as
geography and MFL continue to decline (paragraphs 121 and 122)
a negative consequence of the same increase in pupil flexibility
and choice in key stage 4 which HMCI attributes higher achievement?
If so, would HMCI consider that there is a need for learner choice
to be better mediated, for example by students making their choices
from a range of "domains"?
26. HMCI records particular concerns with
ICT, Citizenship and RE provision (paragraph 120).
— To what extent may HMCI's concerns
be attributable to difficulties in teacher supply?
— To what extent may they be attributable
to a lack of professional development opportunities?
— To what extent may they be attributable
to difficulties of school timetabling?
27. HMCI makes an observation that are shortcomings
in accommodation in around a quarter of schools (paragraph 124).
— Has HMCI been able to make any correlation
between his observations on issues such as student attainment
or quality of teaching and the quality of the learning and teaching
environment?
28. HMCI notes that "many children
from lower socio-economic groups suffer educational disadvantage
because they lack well informed family support, financial backing,
benign peer pressure and a healthy lifestyle. These causes of
disadvantage can be compounded by other factors, such as racial
inequality, mobility or family disruption" (paragraph 146).
— Does HMCI suggest that the factors
compounding disadvantage are in some sense secondary, and therefore
not to be treated as causes?
— How would HMCI intend to address
the causes of educational disadvantage?
29. HMCI reports that "Behaviour is
unsatisfactory in just under one school in 10, mainly because
of low level disruption in lessons" (Key Points page 34).
— Would HMCI agree that the decline
of LEA behavioural support teams which has resulted from Fair
Funding pressures on LEAs to achieve high levels of delegation
of resources to schools has impacted on the ability of schools
to support teachers in tackling unacceptable pupil behaviour?
Special schools and pupil referral units
30. HMCI summarises that "most schools
for pupils with emotional, behavioural and special difficulties
continue to be less effective than other special schools. They
constitute almost half of the special schools that have not improved
enough" (Main Findings, page 41).
— Would HMCI concede that the substantial
recruitment and retention difficulties identified in EBSD schools
create pressures which hamper the effectiveness of EBSD schools?
— Would HMCI agree that support available
from specialist teachers employed by the LEA can be critical in
providing regular support and advice and short, focused additional
sessions? Given that the main findings on special schools for
EDSD pupils suggest a need for greater support, would HMCI agree
that LEAs should be required to revive and maintain behaviour
support services which can provide specialist support services
to EBSD schools?
— Would HMCI agree that more LEAs should
employ educational psychologists specialising in work with pupils
with ASD, EBSD or sensory disabilities so that pupils can be regularly
supported by visits from a speech and language therapist? Many
schools complain of the shortage of sufficient, timely help from
specialist teachers, therapists and psychologists, and where such
additional support is provided it is seen by schools to be making
a significant contribution, so would HMCI agree that the shortage
of such support undermines the best efforts of teaching staff?
31. HMCI reports that "forward looking
special schools are taking steps to manage changes in their roles.
A small minority have developed successful outreach support for
mainstream schools, but this kind of provision is not yet sufficiently
developed" (Main Findings, page 41).
— How does HMCI believe that special
and mainstream schools can be enabled to develop links and outreach
work that builds on the strengths of both mainstream and special
schools?
— Does HMCI believe that one universal
aspect of every mainstream and special school be their role in
the delivery of integrated children services?
— Does HMCI concede that the encouragement
in the Five Year Strategy for schools, particularly secondary
schools, to be given greater autonomy and the freedom to develop
their own unique ethos, mitigates against the success of the new
agenda that schools work as public services, and work together
to ensure that the whole system meets the needs of all children,
including those with SEN?
32. HMCI reports that "while many special
schools have links with mainstream schools, but have yet to translate
this into supporting the development of outreach work and encouraging
partnerships between special and mainstream schools" (page
44).
— Would HMCI agree that if all special
educational needs co-ordinators had designated non contact time
appropriate to the numbers of pupils with special education needs
within their schools, and received training on multi-agency working
and working with special school colleagues, these links would
improve?
— Would HMCI agree that almost all
schools need effective external support from local authorities
and other services in order to benefit from connections with special
schools in terms of guidance, training, resources and the monitoring
of progress?
Schools causing concern
33. HMCI reports that the "increase
in the number of secondary schools made subject to special measures
was marked" (paragraph 207).
— Given that HMCI acknowledges later
in this chapter that the general increase in the number of schools
placed in special measures was due to the application of the new
inspection framework from September 2003, how does HMCI account
for the over-representation of secondary schools within the special
measures category?
— How fair to schools does HMCI think
it was to "raise the bar" in terms of inspectors' expectations
without notifying them of the changes to the interpretation of
the "satisfactory" judgement until almost a year after
it was first used?
34. HMCI asserts that "improvement
in schools results from the efforts of those who work in them,
but special measures undoubtedly helps" (paragraph 222).
— Would HMCI agree that the additional
resources and support provided to schools, in particular, by the
LEA, are critical to the improvement process and that the same
rate of improvement would be achieved if the "special measures"
label was discontinued but the additional support remained?
— Would HMCI comment on the well-documented
negative effects of the special measures designation, in particular,
its effect on the recruitment and retention of staff and pupil
intake?
35. Paragraph 237 lists a number of features
associated with leadership and management which characterise "successful"
Fresh Start schools.
— What impact does pupil profile have
on the subsequent effect of Fresh Start schools? For example,
is there a difference in performance between schools where the
pupil population remains the same and those where efforts are
made to disperse pupils of the existing school?
36. Paragraphs 242-51 contain HMCI's views
on the benefits of external support to schools, in particular,
that provided by LEA. HMCI also notes that partnerships or federations
between schools "are not always effective".
— What is HMCI's view of the Government's
plans, as outlined in its Five Year Strategy document, for increased
use of partnerships between schools for school improvement purposes,
with a concomitant reduction in the role of LEAS, so that they
would act as a "broker" rather than provider of support
to schools? Does HMCI believe that this is an evidence-based policy?
Independent schools
37. HMCI observes about Muslim schools that
". . . planning and schemes of work often require further
development, and many schools must adapt their curriculum to ensure
that it provides pupils with a broad general knowledge of public
institutions and services in England and helps them to acquire
an appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that
promotes tolerance and harmony." (paragraph 283).
— Could HMCI provide examples of how
Muslim schools fail to provide their pupils with the broad general
knowledge of public institutions and services envisaged by HMCI?
— Could HMCI also cite positive evidence
as to how evangelical Christian and Jewish schools, whose faith
strongly underpins their curriculum and ethos, provide well for
pupils' multicultural education?
— Would HMCI agree, more generally,
that issues around planning and the delivery of the curriculum
are inextricably linked to the availability of adequate funding
and resources?
Post-compulsory education in colleges and other
provision
38. HMCI writes that "colleges had
made good progress in revising their equal opportunities and diversity
policies to reflect legislation. All colleges inspected, for example,
had race equality policies, although not all had made significant
progress in implementing them" (paragraph 333).
— Would HMCI recognise a difference
between a commitment to equality in theory and a commitment to
equality in practice, and if so, what would HMCI identify as the
cause for this discrepancy?
— Does HMCI consider equality legislation
as sufficient for changing socially ingrained attitudes, stereotypes
and prejudices that prevent the realisation of an egalitarian
society?
39. HMCI reports that some schools and colleges
"were simply insufficiently aware of the needs of young people
who had attained a certain competence in English, but still lacked
the language needed for success at the higher academic levels.
Colleges were usually better able to fund specialist support than
schools, which had little targeted language support post-16. Where
learners moved from one institution to another, either at 16 or
14-16, there was little continuity of language support because
of insufficient sharing of information" (paragraph 337).
— Does HMCI have an explanation for
the low priority given to young people with English as an additional
language?
— Would HMCI agree that there is a
reciprocal relationship between the low professional status of
EAL staff in schools and colleges and the insufficient awareness
of the needs of young EAL learners?
— What recommendations would HMCI make
to ensure a more targeted language support post-16 both in schools
and colleges?
— How does HMCI explain the moving
of young EAL learners between institutions and the insufficient
sharing of information about their educational needs?
Teacher training, development and supply
40. HMCI reports that "the management
and training in many secondary SCITT programmes have improved,
although primary SCITTs are not as effective overall as HEI-based
providers" (paragraph 346).
— Could HMCI expand on this finding,
in particular, the capacity of primary schools to provide high
quality initial teacher training experiences?
— What additional support does HMCI
believe is needed, at school level, to bring about the necessary
improvements?
41. HMCI states that, in relation to primary
ITT provision, "one-year postgraduate courses are not able
to give enough time to training to teach the foundation subjects
and religious education" (paragraph 350).
— In HMCI's view, what implications
does this finding have for the future of primary ITT, in particular,
the expansion of the number of places available for primary Graduate
Teacher Programme candidates?
— How far would HMCI relate this finding
to his comments about teachers' insufficiently robust subject
knowledge in the primary chapter of this report?
42. In relation to the Graduate Teacher
Programme, the Annual Report says that "there are fewer examples
of very good teaching and more of unsatisfactory teaching than
would be expected from trainees following more conventional training
routes." This is attributed to a number of factors, including
training being poorly matched to trainees' needs and weak monitoring
and evaluation systems (paragraphs 357, 371-374).
— How confident is HMCI in the quality
of those teachers who have undertaken this training route?
— What action does HMCI believe should
be taken to address the concerns raised in this report?
— What further action will Ofsted take
to pursue these concerns?
— In HMCI's view, how sensible is the
current expansion of the employment-based training routes, which
has largely been at the expense of the conventional training routes?
43. HMCI notes particular difficulties in
recruiting teachers for management posts and for schools in special
measures (paragraph 360).
— To what does HMCI attribute these
findings?
— How does HMCI reconcile these findings
with his comments about the benefits of special measures earlier
in this report?
— Would HMCI agree that Ofsted itself
is a disincentive for teachers to take up such posts?
44. The Annual Report outlines continuing
concerns about the quality of teaching by supply teachers (Paragraphs
361).
— To what extent does HMCI believe
that a lack of adequate professional development opportunities
have contributed to the comparatively weaker performance of supply
teachers?
— Given the increased reliance by schools
on teacher supply agencies, and the increased number and profitability
of such agencies, would HMCI agree that teacher supply agencies
should be required to take greater responsibility for the training,
quality and suitability of those teachers they place in schools?
45. In the thematic report on "Remodelling
the School Workforce", HMCI identifies funding as a key factor
in schools' readiness and ability to implement the first phase
of the national agreement on workforce reform (paragraph 378).
— In relation to this finding, did
HMCI find significant differences in the ability of the primary
and secondary sectors to fund implementation of the first phase?
— On the available evidence, does HMCI
believe that all schools will be able to meet the contractual
changes relating to PPA time in September 2005?
46. HMCI states that "since there is
no shared understanding of what trainees need to know in order
to teach citizenship effectively, tutors design courses which
reflect their own particular perspective. This results in some
inconsistency in the design and content of courses" (paragraph
387).
— How does HMCI explain the lack of
a shared understanding about the requirements for teaching citizenship
among tutors?
— Does HMCI suggest that despite tutors
bringing their own particular perspective to the design and content
of their courses, the inconsistency arising from this is irrelevant
to the delivery of the citizenship framework in schools?
47. HMCI comments about school-based training
that "because the subject is still being developed in many
schools, providers have difficulties in finding sufficient suitable
school placements, so trainees' experience of teaching citizenship
is limited. (. . .) In schools where citizenship is not well developed,
mentors are not specialists, the school-based training programme
lacks a strong subject dimension, and there are insufficient opportunities
for trainees to observe teachers who demonstrate good practice
in teaching citizenship" (paragraph 389).
— Would HMCI agree that many schools
are still developing the teaching of citizenship due to a lack
of resources as well as an overloaded national curriculum?
— Does HMCI's criticism of the quality
of mentoring citizenship trainees imply a call for more training
opportunities as well as for greater consistency and clarity about
the requirements of teaching citizenship among course providers?
Local education authorities
48. HMCI warns that "some important
areas of challenge and for improvement remain in a few of the
LEAs inspected if all of them are to be able to met the demands
of `Every Child Matters' and the Children Act 2004" (paragraph
394). One of these areas would appear to be that "some aspects
of inclusion are still too poorly served in too many LEAs"
(paragraph 397).
— In HMCI's view, what proportion of
LEAs is prepared to meet the requirements of "Every Child
Matters" and the Children Act 2004 fully?
— Have the requirements for structural
change at local authority level helped or hindered the implementation
of the "Every Child Matters" and the Children Act 2004?
— How confident is HMCI that the gains
in the quality of LEA support to schools over recent years, reported
in paragraph 396, will be able to be maintained in light if these
new demands?
49. HMCI notes that of the 30 LEAs inspected
in 2003-04, eight are or had been subject to some sort of intervention
(paragraph 395).
— Can HMCI expand on this finding,
in particular, any trend in the performance of LEAs which have
been subject to intervention?
— Does HMCI plan to undertake an analysis
of the effectiveness of the different methods employed in LEAs
subject to intervention, such as outsourcing, joint venture partnerships
and education trusts?
50. HMCI suggests that "variation in
the quality of advisors and their capacity to offer the level
of challenge required by schools are, in a few LEAs, a concern,
particularly at secondary level" (paragraph 407) (NUT's emphasis).
— How does HMCI reconcile this statement
with the headline to the "themes" section "variability
in the quality of advisors is a concern in one in six of the LEAs
inspected"(NUT's emphasis)?
— What impact does HMCI believe that
Government's policy has had on the recruitment and retention on
LEA advisory staff, particularly at secondary level?
51. HMCI states that "LEAs' support
for raising standards in literacy and numeracy is good or very
good in half of LEAs inspected, despite most having failed to
meet their Key Stage 2 targets in 2003—a consequence of
the high level at which targets were set, rather than of poor
LEA support to schools" (paragraph 408).
— Is HMCI referring to targets set
nationally or locally?
— Why does HMCI believe that schools'
potential performance has been over-estimated to this extent?
— Does HMCI agree that the linkage
of schools' performance, as measured by National Curriculum Key
Stage 2 tests, with LEAs own performance indicators has had an
impact on LEAs' target setting?
52. HMCI observes that "although 22
LEAs provide satisfactory or better support in promoting race
equality, provision is unsatisfactory in eight, a slightly worse
picture than in 2002-03. (. . .) The weakest performing LEAs have
been too slow to respond to the provisions of the Race Relations
(Amendment) Act 2000. (paragraph 425)
— How does HMCI explain the worsening
of the implementation of race equality by LEAs?
— Would HMCI accept that the financial
restraints imposed upon local authorities by the new EMAG funding
formula might have prompted LEAs to compromise on their duty to
promote race equality?
— Would HMCI agree that the provisions
of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 lack teeth?
March 2005
|
