Memorandum submitted by the National Union
of Teachers
HMCI'S ANNUAL REPORT 2004-05
I thought that it would be helpful if I sent
you a letter setting out some questions which arise from the HMCI
report for 2004-05. 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
The Commentary contains a long section on self-evaluation
and the role of Ofsted in promoting it.
— On what does HMCI base his assertion
that "Ofsted has promoted self-evaluation from the start"
(page 7), given the former HMCI, Chris Woodhead's hostility to
self-evaluation, including to the NUT-sponsored work of Professor
John MacBeath, "Schools Speak for Themselves"?
— Would HMCI agree that the new arrangements
propose self-inspection, rather than self-evaluation by schools?
— Who does HMCI believe is the primary
audience for schools' self-evaluation?
CHILDCARE AND
EARLY LEARNING
Out of school care is criticised as being the
least likely form of provision to be rated as good or better (Paragraph
4).
— Would HMCI expand on these findings
and identify any common weaknesses or issues identified in out
of school care by Ofsted?
— In HMCI's view, what are the implications
of this finding for the expansion of out of school care provision,
as announced in the Government's Ten Year Childcare Strategy?
It is stated that "the quality of education
remains at least good in most private, voluntary and independent
nursery settings" (Paragraph 10).
— How does this judgement compare with
Ofsted's findings on maintained nursery provision?
— Has Ofsted found any correlation
between quality of education and quality of staff in the early
years?
PRIMARY AND
MAINTAINED NURSERY
SCHOOLS
HMCI's Annual Report draws attention to the
finding that in the Foundation Stage "achievement in physical
development is not quite as good as in other areas" (Paragraph
17) and adds that this "was also the area least well resourced"
(Paragraph 29).
— Would HMCI expand on this finding,
in particular, whether maintained nursery schools have sufficient
support at local and national levels to rectify this situation?
— What steps does HMCI believe are
necessary to ensure that all nursery schools and reception classes
have access to appropriate outdoor play facilities?
HMCI reports that achievement continues to be
better in the core subjects than in the foundation subjects (Paragraph
15) and identifies a number of factors which contribute to this
situation (Paragraph 35).
— Would HMCI agree that pressure on
schools to meet national targets for the core subjects at Key
Stage 2 should be added to the list of factors?
— Would HMCI agree that the exclusive
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?
— In HMCI's view, how supportive of
improvement are current professional development opportunities
for teachers in terms of the foundation subjects? Could HMCI suggest
how professional development might be strengthened in this area?
SECONDARY SCHOOLS,
INCLUDING SIXTH
FORMS
HMCI reports that "too many individual
pupils [with EAL and with LDD] do not make as much progress as
they could; many schools still struggle to provide effectively
for schools with diverse and complex needs" (Paragraph 49).
In addition, HMCI reports that "the underachievement of boys
remains a concern" (Paragraph 51).
— Does HMCI consider that there is
a case for the review of the National Curriculum at Key Stages
3 or 4 to increase the capacity of teachers to meet a wide variety
of need?
HMCI reports that "there is still a tendency
for the content of lessons to be focused on test and examination
requirements, sometimes limiting the breadth of study and . .
. shifting the focus away from instilling fundamental subject
principles" (Paragraph 56). HMCI notes also that "links
between subjects that enhance learning are not generally sufficiently
exploited" (Paragraph 58).
— Does HMCI consider that the apparently
detrimental focus on test and examination requirements is exacerbated
by accountability measures such as performance tables for schools
and colleges based on test and examination results?
— Would HMCI agree that there is a
case for a fundamental review of the secondary school curriculum
and assessment requirements in their entirety which seeks to address
the concerns outlined above as a central function of such a review?
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
— Does HMCI agree with the Government
that special schools have a future role in the spectrum of educational
provision or does HMCI believe in the objective of the vast majority
of special schools closing?
HMCI report that "unsatisfactory attendance
was seen in only schools for pupils with EBSD and MLD in 2004-05"
(paragraph 78).
— Did HMCI seek to evaluate the reasons
for poor attendance in these settings?
— Were there any medical or social
reasons for the attendance levels which were not related directly
to the school?
HMCI observe that "assessment information
is not used well enough to inform planning" (paragraph 79).
— Did HMCI observe different forms
of assessment information being used within the schools which
may not conform to a standard format?
— Was this discussed with the individual
teachers concerned or was it as a result of a whole school assessment
policy?
HMCI states that Outreach support, where teachers
from special schools contribute to the training of teachers in
mainstream schools, is beginning to develop, although usually
on an informal basis. "Difficulties of establishing genuine
partnerships remain" (paragraph 84) HMCI reported.
— Did HMCI consider models other than
networks where the teachers from special schools were supporting
those in mainstream schools?
— What advice can HMCI give both special
and mainstream schools with regard to establishing "genuine
partnerships"?
HMCI report that "accommodation is inadequate
in too many schools" (paragraph 85).
— How would HMCI suggest that this
problem be solved in practical terms?
— Does HMCI begin to detect an impact
from the Building Schools for the Future Programme?
— Can HMCI assess the impact that inadequate
accommodation may be having on the teaching, learning and behaviour
within those schools?
HMCI observed that "leadership by key staff,
such as subject leaders and others with management roles, was
far less strong than that of headteachers, limiting the contribution
of these staff to school improvement" (paragraph 86).
— Would HMCI recommend that specific
tailored programmes be put in place to provide training, for staff
with management roles in school, similar to that of the National
College for School Leadership (NCSL)?
PUPIL REFERRAL
UNITS
HMCI state that "weaker governance generally
arises either from an unclear definition of the purpose of the
unit . . . or a failure of the LEA to meet statutory requirements"
(paragraph 99).
— In relation to this finding did HMCI
explore the changing nature of pupil referral units? Many units
which were originally designated as provision for pupils with
moderate learning difficulties (MLD) are now being asked to provide
for pupils with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties
(SEBD). What advice can HMCI offer Local Authorities in managing
such units and in providing a wide range of provision to meet
the needs of all pupils?
SCHOOLS CAUSING
CONCERN
Paragraphs 105-107 contain HMCI's views on the
lessons learnt from the arrangements for schools causing concern,
in particular, the benefits of local authority support to schools
and that "gradual improvements in national test and examination
results" can be observed in most such schools over time.
(Paragraphs 106-107)
— What is HMCI's view of the Government's
plans, as outlined in its White Paper? Does HMCI believe that
the proposals for Trust status and local authorities moving from
provider to commissioner status is based on evidence?
— What is HMCI's view of the Government's
plans, as outlined in its White Paper, to give schools only one
year to be "turned around" before considering closure?
How will schools be able to demonstrate the kind of "gradual
improvement" which HMCI equates with sustainable improvement
in this section of his report?
INITIAL TEACHER
TRAINING
HMCI reports that "mentoring in schools
is too variable, often because of the mentor's lack of specific
subject knowledge when providing feedback to trainees" (Paragraph
148)
— Could HMCI expand on this finding,
in particular, the capacity of primary schools to provide high
quality initial teacher training mentoring?
— What additional support does HMCI
believe is needed, at school level, to bring about the necessary
improvements?
Concern is expressed regarding the provision
of sufficient "Key Stage 1 placements because these placements
are needed for trainees in courses covering pre-school/Key Stage
1 and primary specialists" (Paragraph 151)
— Why does HMCI think placements for
trainees are particularly difficult to organise in Key Stage 1?
— What effect does HMCI think the expansion
of early education provision, as set out in the Government's Ten
Year Childcare Strategy, will have on ITT, in particular, in terms
of sufficient numbers of suitable placements?
LOCAL EDUCATION
AUTHORITIES
HMCI warns that both local authorities' "capacity
for further progress" (Paragraph 157) and "work on promoting
social inclusion remains variable" (Paragraph 160) and that
"the proportion of good or very good authorities (judged
for its partnership work) was lower than last year" (Paragraph
159).
— In HMCI's view, what proportion of
local authorities is able 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 effective joint working, reported in paragraph 161, will be
able to be maintained in light of the White Paper proposals concerning
local authorities' roles and responsibilities in relation to schools?
SURVEYS AND
THEMES
(a) The National Strategies
Paragraph 163 sets out a range of challenges
for the future development of the National Strategies.
— To what extent does HMCI believe
these issues are due to the Government's initial linkage of the
Strategies with its targets for end of Key Stage 2 and 3 test
results?
— Would HMCI agree that professional
development on the Strategies was originally geared towards delivery
rather than understanding of the principles underpinning the Strategies
and that this must be addressed if the challenges identified in
this section are to be overcome?
HMCI reports that primary schools "have
missed opportunities to broaden the curriculum by not giving enough
emphasis to other subjects"(Paragraph 168).
— 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?
— How would HMCI distinguish between
practical constraints on schools and their willingness to offer
a broader curriculum?
(b) Innovations
Remodelling the Workforce
HMCI notes that "many teachers are benefiting"
from the National Agreement on workforce reform, although "most
head teachers and senior managers have yet to see improvements
in their work/life balance" (Paragraph 207)
— Can HMCI identify a direct relationship
between school workforce reforms, particularly those involving
support staff taking teaching roles, and improvements in teaching
and learning?
— How far does HMCI believe difficulties
funding the National Agreement are linked to its limited effect
on the workload of head teachers and senior managers?
Paragraph 208 gives a positive view of the use
of support staff in terms of the benefits of remodelling for pupils,
although HMCI notes that "few schools can specifically identify
its impact on standards".
— How does this paragraph relate to
HMCI's concerns, set out in paragraphs 34, 163 and 171, that "vulnerable
and underachieving pupils are too frequently seen as being the
responsibility of adults other than the class teacher" and
that "teaching assistants (who) do not have the subject knowledge
needed to adapt work sufficiently"?
— In what ways does HMCI suggest that
schools identify the impact of support staff on standards, in
particular, how might schools separate the particular contributions
made by support staff and by teachers?
Extended Schools
HMCI writes, "The early support of local
authorities at the planning stage was often important in securing
successful integration and joint working." (Paragraph 216)
— Does HMCI agree that local authorities
are important to the Every Child Matters agenda? If so how will
their new roles as purely commissioners not planners, as set out
in the White Paper, support their contribution to Every Child
Matters?
— Does HMCI agree that teachers', including
head teachers', responsibilities should be separated from the
delegated extended provision and would it help if the Review Body
addressed this issue?
Curriculum Flexibilities
Paragraphs 219-220 describe teachers' involvement
in the Modern Foreign Languages Pathfinder Project.
— What evidence does HMCI have of the
contribution of adults other than teachers to the Project, given
the importance if such personnel in the Government's Language
Strategy document? Given the comments made in paragraphs 34, 163
and 171 of this report, how confident would HMCI be if the national
roll out of the Project was reliant on support staff rather than
teachers?
— In HMCI's view, how could both initial
and in-service training for teachers address the need for more
in depth knowledge in the target language?
(c) Inclusion
HMCI state that "common weaknesses and
barriers to success, such that pupils and young people did not
make sufficient progress, included: a low level of awareness by
staff of the particular needs of learners and of inclusion issues
generally; difficulties in recruiting or retaining sufficient
suitably trained and knowledgeable staff; and insufficient attention
given to staff training" (paragraph 252).
— To what extent may HMCI's concerns
be attributable to poor support for staff members in terms of
training and continuous professional development opportunities?
— To what extent could the pressures
of the overlapping accountability and assessment frameworks in
schools, including the national strategy programmes, have impacted
on staff opportunities for whole school training and on the ability
of staff to share knowledge and develop good practice?
Advanced bilingual learners
Given the evidence in this section, does HMCI
agree that:
— Short-term EMAG and other streams
of specialist funding have a negative impact on the capacity of
schools and colleges to adequately meet the complex needs of advanced
bilingual learners?
— There is a need for a sustained professional
development strategy to equip teachers in schools and colleges
to recognise and respond to the complex needs of advanced bilingual
learners?
— The needs of advanced bilingual learners
in schools and colleges where they form a small minority are more
difficult to meet compared to settings where institutions are
better equipped and more experienced to meet such needs?
— Institutions which took sufficient
account of students' preferred learning styles, language and literacy
needs, or provided adequate time for developing their analytical
and academic writing skills and thus raised students' attainment
were particularly aware of different cultural perspectives on
the acquisition, purpose and content of knowledge which might
determine students' initial access to the curriculum?
Race equality
On the basis of the evidence in this section,
would HMCI agree that:
— The lack of a clear line of responsibility
at institutional level has resulted in a lack of progress on training
for governors in schools and colleges on the implications of the
Race Relations (Amendment) Act?
— Advice from the DfES and QCA is particularly
weak on the "promoting good race relations between different
groups" aspect of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act?
— Not enough is being done at local
authority level to encourage and train black and minority ethnic
people to become governors?
The Impact of Inspection
HMCI notes that "critical findings, and
the publicity that may accompany them, create a head of steam
that makes action and improvement imperative." (Paragraph
310).
— Would HMCI agree that media reports
of inspection outcomes focus more on negative rather than positive
findings? What, if any, guidance has Ofsted produced for the media
on the interpretation of Ofsted inspection reports?
— Would HMCI comment on the view that
"media stories could be written, but rarely are, about (the)
non-Academy failures", expressed by the Prime Minister at
the launch of the City of London Academy in September 2005?
— Does HMCI believe that public naming
and shaming of schools is the best way of motivating schools to
improve?
HMCI asserts that "for schools, judgements
on successive inspections are the most readily available measures
of quality and improvement." (Paragraph 314)
— How does HMCI reconcile this statement
with what he says in paragraph 306, relating to "raising
the bar" in revisions to the inspection framework? How is
Ofsted able to compare performance between inspections if the
inspection framework is frequently re-written?
— Would HMCI agree that high quality
self-evaluation provides the most readily available measure of
quality and improvement for schools?
On page eight of the Commentary section, HMCI
says that school's self-evaluation will not replace inspection
as it provides "an essential independent scrutiny"
— Would HMCI agree that the "Impact"
section of the report is, in effect, Ofsted's self-evaluation?
— When will an independent scrutiny
of Ofsted's impact and value for money, as recommended by the
Select Committee previously, be undertaken?
November 2005
|
