Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
ATL draws to the attention of the Committee
the following concerns which relate to the work of Ofsted under
the new Inspection framework. We are aware that as the new framework
only came into force from September, it is still quite early to
comment. However, the following concerns have arisen directly
from first hand evidence obtained from Branch Secretaries of the
Association.
1. We are concerned that, although the new
inspection regime is designed to reduce pressure on schools, we
have anecdotal evidence that onerous lesson observation regimes
and extra workloads are being imposed by some headteachers as
a result of the short notice approach. This situation may arise
when the headteacher is excessively anxious and attempts to provide
"insurance" through over elaborating and over specifying.
This can impact down through the school, increasing the pressure
on all layers of management and classroom teachers. An inspector
is reported as saying that to justify the "light touch"
regime, every day must be like an Ofsted inspection. Whilst accepting
that inspection has as its main purpose the maintenance and raising
of standards, it does seem wrong headed to suggest that the peculiar
circumstances of its two day visitation should be reproduced every
day! It is even more wrong headed to actually try to achieve that,
as seems to happening in certain schools. ATL would like good
practice, especially in the matter of observation regimes, more
widely disseminated so that heads knew clearly what is expected.
It is not Ofsted's brief to provide training of course, but perhaps
greater guidance might be offered?
We request the Committee to recommend to the
Chief Inspector that he works to achieve clarity with regard to
good practice in this area.
2. We are concerned that the letters to
pupils, which are now part of the reporting process, may have
a tone and content which act against productive and mutually respectful
relationships between school and pupils/parents. As a reported
example:
"We do not think your teachers set you challenging
enough work, and when this happens you do not learn as much as
you could"
This can be construed in no other way as a generalised
criticism of the school's teaching and teachers to a child, which
might be considered unprofessional in other contexts.
We request that the Committee recommend to the
Chief Inspector that these letters are carefully monitored, and
that he ensures good practice is properly adhered to.
3. We are concerned that the language used in
reporting is clear and transparent in its meaning. A reported
example where this is not the case follows:
"Taken overall, the teaching is inadequate
because a significant proportion of teaching observed in the school
is no better than satisfactory"
Whilst an "expert" reader might understand
the provenance of this comment, to the general reader, teaching
is either satisfactory or it isn't.
As a further point, the comment refers to the
teaching "observed"—Guidance for Conducting the
Inspection (published July 2005) states that the prime evidence
for judgements of teaching quality is to be found in the published
outcomes of students in terms of standards, progress and personal
development. Other sources of evidence also contribute to the
judgement of teaching quality, for example, interviews with learners
and examination of their work. Can it be right that an overall
judgement on quality of teaching, a central plank in determining
the school's overall effectiveness, makes no reference to these
other factors? As it stands, the comment implies that overall
quality of teaching has been ascertained by aggregating individual
lesson scores, a practice which Ofsted guidance specifically says
should not happen.
We would ask the Committee to recommend to the
Chief Inspector that he further impresses upon his inspectors
the need for clarity in their reporting, such that a lay person
would have no trouble in interpreting the comments.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
is a trade union and professional association representing over
160,000 members, the majority of whom are practising teachers.
It also has a growing number of members who are directly involved
in education, but who are not teachers.
October 2005
| 
