Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Lay Inspectors
SUMMARY
— the new inspection system cannot
deliver the depth of scrutiny and thought previously delivered
as the result of sharply reduced inspector man-days
— inspection audit is led by each school's
self-evaluation. The quality of these is extremely variable, and
consequently the broad middle range of schools tends to be too
difficult to assess thoroughly in the time available
— worryingly, the Every Child Matters
agenda necessarily receives a light sampling and is less extensive
than previously
— arrangements for the implementation
of the new system have been maladroit, with little regard for
the difficulties of the outside inspection workforce.
1.1 The public from September 2005 is not
receiving the broad quality of outside inspection that it did.
Such coverage cannot be expected when the rate of inspections
is doubled while using only a quarter of the previous workforce.
1.2 As fewer than a handful of inspectors
are in school for, usually, a maximum of two days, during which
time the conclusions and report have to be written (within a working
day ending at 5 pm), and that in a working week two such schools
are dealt with, it necessarily follows that the process, while
incisive in a small number of key aspects, must in many respects
be rapid and cursory.
2.1 Schools which are either excellent or
very weak are easily distinguishable quickly. The new inspection
system suits such very efficiently. A broad majority does not
fit either category but poses a more difficult, though most important,
challenge: how to diagnose and provide pointers for improvement.
The new system is weaker than the old in this respect. Only the
few most important issues, for instance, can now be pursued and
reported on.
3.1 Considering how central to government
policy Every Child Matters was in devising the new inspection
system, it is regrettable that less coverage can be given to such
matters in each school than was the case before. For the reasons
stated above, shorter examination can be made of health and safety,
involving, for instance, school hazards and security. The effectiveness
of attendance monitoring and management will only receive attention
if there is significant variation from the national norm. Child
protection matters have to be fitted in. Despite the express desire
for joined-up monitoring, there seems to be no mechanism in place
for individual schools to reflect their anxieties or praise regarding
the responsiveness and management of such welfare matters by the
responsible authorities in their area.
4.1 Ofsted has trialled the new inspection
system more thoroughly than ever before, extending over more than
one year. One consequence of this has been uncertainty regarding
many features, and even in September, as inspections properly
started, adjustments were being made. This has been producing
unsettling effects for the inspection contractors and their potential
workforce throughout this lengthy period; details are too many
to enter into.
4.2 Regionalisation, in itself, while apparently
sensible and efficient, has several features which legitimately
give rise to concern. Much will depend on the reliability of each
regional inspection provider (RISP). A recent survey among our
members indicated wide differences between them in pro-activity.
One feature has been that communication between many RISPs and
aspirant inspectors has been poor.
4.3 A most unsatisfactory element has been
the requirement to purchase quite costly training before any assurance
of consequent employment, or even knowing what pay rates might
be. A further, avoidable, hiccup has been a late requirement,
in the summer, for all aspirant inspectors to pass an enhanced
child protection check, in some cases even before they could enter
training. This has led to many changes of personnel in early inspections.
Further, although all inspectors are now expected to be able to
lead the new inspections, no training specifically designed to
assist them in this role has yet been provided.
4.4 Lastly, we should just like it to be
put on record how much Ofsted owes to the very many dedicated
inspectors and contractors outside its own HMI. Over the past
12 years this contingent, by far the largest proportion of inspectors
in the field, have put into practice the working of Ofsted's successive
Frameworks, and the extension of those guidelines as frequently
required and enunciated through almost 50 Updates. This workforce
has effected Ofsted's practical requirements, thereby substantially
determining Ofsted's reputation among schools, parents, and the
public at large (among whom the distinction between Ofsted and
its contracted workforce has never been clear).
It is unfortunate, to put the matter at its
least, that by far the greater part of this honed and respected
workforce has now been stood down, and that no acknowledgement
of such sensitive and powerful aid has ever been gratefully acknowledged
in the Annual Reports of successive HMCIs. This lacuna is now
simply a historical fact but is also indicative of the distancing
which has hitherto characterised the dealings of Ofsted with those
whom it uses to fulfil its work.
It may also be worthy of observation that the
inspection system is losing a voice for independent and fearless
expression on behalf of pupils and the public through the removal
of lay inspectors. It may be of concern that those inspectors
relying upon longer contracts within the new, more limited, system
(almost all) will find it difficult to resist pressures from above
that may be put upon them. Ofsted is content that any problems
or reservations that inspectors may wish to voice in the future
will be represented to them through their employers, the regional
inspection providers.
October 2005
|
