Memorandum submitted by the National Union
of Teachers (NUT)
SUMMARY
This submission from the National Union of Teachers
(NUT) focuses on issues arising from the new framework for the
inspection of schools, including one day inspection visits and
inspection judgements on Every Child Matters. The submission also
addresses early years inspection and relevant provision within
the Education and Inspection Act, in particular, School Improvement
Partners and the new arrangements for schools in Ofsted categories
of concern.
There are a number of questions which arise
from the submission which members of the Select Committee may
wish to consider in their interview with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector.
These questions are as follows:
— Can HMCI be confident that the
new inspection arrangements, which in many cases involve a one
day visit to schools, present an accurate picture of schools'
performance?
— Would HMCI agree that a review
of the entire inspection system is now needed, since the future
of individual schools rests on judgements which do not include
an evaluation of teaching throughout the whole school?
— Would HMCI agree that it would
be timely to enter into a public debate about the future format
of school inspection arrangements?
— Given the finding that "the
overall picture is positive", would HMCI agree that Ofsted
should be moving towards a system of evaluating each school's
self-evaluation arrangements rather than inspection of schools?
— Have the reforms to the Ofsted
school inspection arrangements been driven by educational or financial
considerations?
— Would HMCI agree that internal
monitoring and evaluation have increased significantly since the
introduction of the new inspection framework and that this has
been driven in large part by the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form (SEF)?
— What level of responsibility will
Ofsted take for ensuring that monitoring and evaluation are developmental
processes, linked closely to professional development identification?
— Would HMCI agree that Ofsted's
focus on this area could lead schools to place more emphasis on
the quality rather than quality of monitoring and evaluation?
— Is it possible for Ofsted to gather
hard data within individual schools on the five Every Child Matters
outcomes, when they are equally dependent on what happens outside
the school, in pupils' homes and local communities?
— Why is the contribution of the
local authority children's services not a factor in the evaluation
of the school's performance in terms of the Every Child Matters
indicators?
— What remedies does HMCI think
should be put in place which would address this imbalance?
— Does not HMCI consider that this
is a fundamental criticism of high stakes test and examinations
themselves?
— Does she believe that there should
be a review of the impact of summative testing on young people's
learning?
— Does HMCI believe that it is important
to retain qualified teachers as part of the early years team,
rather than replace them with Early Years Professionals?
— Is she concerned that the employment
of Early Years Professionals rather than qualified teachers will
impact negatively on the quality of early education provision,
particularly in Children's Centres?
— Why does the Annual Report not
contain a break down of effectiveness of early education by types
of setting or provider, comparable to Figure 4, as in previous
years?
— Is HMCI aware of the type of setting
which consistently provides the highest quality of early years
provision in each of the categories used in Figure 3?
— Does HMCI have a view on why quality
of early education has the second lowest ranking for effectiveness?
— How do these findings relate to
those reported in paragraph 25, that "most of the nursery
schools inspected are good or outstanding"?
— What factors can HMCI identify
that make such a difference in these inspection judgements?
— What implications do they have
for the future of early years education provision?
— Is HMCI comfortable with the role
of School Improvement Partners (SIPs)?
— Does HMCI have plans to evaluate
the impact of SIPs on schools' management, leadership and standards?
— Would HMCI agree that SIPs are,
in effect, Ofsted's "territorial army", a sub-contracted
version of additional inspectors?
— Does HMCI think that SIPs will
provide local authorities and Ofsted with the same high quality
information that trained HMIs offer currently?
— In HMCI's view, how appropriate
are Academies as the solution to the types of problems identified
by Ofsted which lead to schools being placed in special measures?
— What are HMCI's first impressions
of Ofsted's relationship with Government?
— How independent is Ofsted? Is
HMCI able to speak "without fear or favour"?
— Bearing in mind that Academies
are Government's flagship initiative, does she believe Academy
status, of itself, will raise standards?
— Does HMCI agree that one year
is sufficient time to turn around a "failing school"
and introduce sustainable improvement, as Government claims?
— Could HMCI specify the actual
average recovery time for primary and secondary schools placed
in special measures?
— Would HMCI agree that the "one
size fits all" recovery time suggested by the DfES in its
draft guidance on schools causing concern is unrealistic and unhelpful?
— How does this view relate to that
expressed by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently,
which suggested that over 1,500 schools were failing?
— What percentage of secondary schools
are actually failing, as opposed to requiring special measures?
— Would HMCI agree with the Public
Accounts Committee that Ofsted needs to do more to support schools
at risk of failure?
— Would HMCI expand on her comment
later in the Commentary that "it may well be that the
answer in the most challenging of neighbourhoods will be not more
of the same but something different"?
— To what extent does HMCI believe
that current difficulties in recruiting and retaining head teachers
is affecting the performance of schools in the most challenging
circumstances?
— What does HMCI think could be
done to make headship in such schools more attractive?
— Does HMCI agree with the view
expressed in some quarters, that head teachers do not necessarily
need to have an educational background?
— What impact, if any, does she
think that such head teachers might have on educational standards?
FULL SUBMISSION
1. This submission from the National Union
of Teachers (NUT) focuses on issues arising from the new framework
for the inspection of schools, including one day inspection visits
and inspection judgements on Every Child Matters. The submission
also addresses early years inspection and relevant provision within
the Education and Inspection Act, in particular, School Improvement
Partners and the new arrangements for schools in Ofsted categories
of concern.
2. As HMCI's Annual Report 2005-06 was published
after the Select Committee's call for evidence, this submission
also draws on and relates relevant findings in the Annual Report
to the above areas of scrutiny.
SECTION 5 INSPECTION
3. The new school inspection arrangements
are predicated on the belief that inspectors are able not only
to evaluate schools as they are but are able to understand and
convey the complexity and "dynamic" of a school's character
during a visit lasting, in many case, no longer than one day.
Snapshots of a school's performance, which still lie at the heart
of the new inspection model, are by nature limited by both the
inspection framework and focus.
4. "Reduced tariff" inspections
were introduced in September 2006 for approximately 20% of higher
achieving schools. Such schools have been described by Ofsted
as those "where achievement is high, self-evaluation is
good and there is a good track record from the schools' previous
inspections". Yet many of these schools have not been
inspected under the new Section 5 arrangements. Judgements on
whether a school is eligible for a reduced tariff inspection are
made, therefore, purely on the evidence available from pupil performance
data, with all of the dangers of relying too heavily on such an
approach.
5. Under the new arrangements for the inspection
of higher achieving schools, the process of inspection remains
very similar to that for full Section 5 inspections. This means
that inspectors undertake the same kinds of activities during
the inspection visit, but have even less time to complete them.
Direct interaction between inspectors and the school, through
activities such as observation of lessons or talking to staff,
pupils and governors have therefore been reduced still further,
becoming virtually meaningless.
6. The further streamlining of school inspection
arrangements would suggest that a review of the entire inspection
regime is now needed. One model would be to combine Ofsted's emphasis
on achieving an accurate and rigorous view of the school's effectiveness
with a proper engagement with the school community, on the procedures
it uses to assess its strengths and weaknesses and its plans for
improvement.
7. Inspections would examine the processes
and procedures schools have in place for gathering information
on levels of pupil achievement, on the personal and social development
of pupils and on the views of the school community. The inspection
framework would be flexible enough to respond to school evaluation
models which have been developed or adapted by schools themselves
to reflect their curriculum range and activities, rather than
limited to the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form (SEF).
Can HMCI be confident that the new inspection
arrangements, which in many cases involve a one day visit to schools,
present an accurate picture of schools' performance? Would HMCI
agree that a review of the entire inspection system is now needed,
since the future of individual schools rests on judgements which
do not include an evaluation of teaching throughout the whole
school?
8. HMCI concludes the Commentary by setting
out her vision for the future. In particular, she intends to adopt
the principles that "there should be no inspections without
a reason" and that "comprehensive risk assessment
should be at the heart of all programmes of inspection".
Would HMCI agree that it would be timely
to enter into a public debate about the future format of school
inspection arrangements? Given the finding that "the overall
picture is positive", would HMCI agree that Ofsted should
be moving towards a system of evaluating each school's self-evaluation
arrangements rather than inspection of schools?
9. The Ofsted consultation document which
set out the proposals for reduced tariff inspections said that
this development was predicated on "achieving better value
for money". Value for money, however, should not be the
main criteria for basing fundamental changes to inspection arrangements.
It is essential that the effectiveness of the service provided
by Ofsted to schools is of paramount concern. The inspectorate
is in the optimal position to present an overview of best practice
and "what works" in a wide range of contexts, which
could offer practical support to school improvement. In terms
of value for money, this function should be exploited far more,
as the Committee has itself recommended previously.
Have the reforms to the Ofsted school inspection
arrangements been driven by educational or financial considerations?
10. Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Annual Report
address the leadership and management issues. Analysis of "the
quality and consistency of teaching... to ensure that the professional
development provided for staff brings about improvement"
is highlighted as a feature of outstanding leaders. In addition,
it is suggested that "monitoring and evaluation... remain
the weakest elements of leadership and management".
Would HMCI agree that internal monitoring
and evaluation have increased significantly since the introduction
of the new inspection framework and that this has been driven
in large part by the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form (SEF)? What level
of responsibility will Ofsted take for ensuring that monitoring
and evaluation are developmental processes, linked closely to
professional development identification? Would HMCI agree that
Ofsted's focus on this area could lead schools to place more emphasis
on the quality rather than quality of monitoring and evaluation?
11. On the evidence of the current "Framework
for the Inspection of Schools in England from September 2005",
there would appear to be little significant change to the focus
of inspection, despite the inclusion of references to the five
Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes as part of evaluation requirements.
As the above document says, "most refer to enjoying and
achieving", although "in judging leadership and
management and the overall effectiveness of the provider, inspectors
will consider the contribution made to all five outcomes".
12. The inclusion of the ECM indicators highlights
a long-standing tension between what Ofsted uses to base its reports
on and what parents and others want to know about schools. Ofsted,
through its reliance on performance data to inform judgements,
concentrates on that which is easily measurable. Fundamental questions,
such as the happiness, well-being and engagement of individual
pupils within a school are not so easily answered by a "snap
shot" approach and are more likely to be accurately determined
by on-going monitoring and evaluation, in particular, that done
through schools' self evaluation work.
13. The NUT has welcomed previously the
inclusion of the ECM indicators in the revised Ofsted inspection
framework. It has noted, however, that there is considerable variation
in the frequency with which the indicators other than "enjoying
and achieving" appear, for example, the "achieving economic
well-being" indicator is used almost twice as often as "being
healthy". This would seem to imply a hierarchy of indicators,
at least in educational settings, which could undermine the holistic
approach taken in Every Child Matters to the relationship and
inter-play between these indicators.
14. In addition, the rationale for assigning
indicators to some of the strands of the inspection schedule appears
unclear or arbitrary. Judgements on the behaviour of learners,
for example, are used to provide evidence for the "being
healthy" and "staying safe" indicators, although
behaviour would have a fundamental impact on "enjoying and
achieving" and could also be argued to relate to "making
a positive contribution " and "achieving economic well-being".
15. A NUT head teacher member, speaking
at the October 2006 NUT Leadership Convention, expressed concerns
shared by many about the inclusion of the ECM indicators within
school inspections:
"There seems to me to be a great tension
between inspection nominally based on the five outcomes (for which
hoorah!) and inspection which is overtly and dominantly "data-focused".
But there isn't comparable data for all five outcomes and data
means SAT scores (ie one narrow part of the outcomes). I heartily
welcome the ECM agenda but I am very sceptical about, in practice,
the implications for inspection. When did a school ever go into
special measures for having a poor inclusion policy?"
16. This exemplifies the difficulty of attempting
to marry the inspection schedule with the ECM indicators, as the
two have very different starting points, over-arching philosophies
and purposes. Whilst acknowledging the desire to reflect the Every
Child Matters agenda within the Ofsted inspection framework in
order to "mainstream" it, this can only ever be on a
superficial level, as the much broader and less easily measurable
concerns of the former cannot be adequately captured by the "snap
shot" approach of the latter.
17. In addition, the inclusion of the ECM
indicators in the inspection evaluation criteria is predicated
on schools' ability to address wider, societal issues, such as
the prevailing culture of the neighbourhood and the socio-economic
profile of the community from which the school intake is drawn.
As the recent Audit Commission report, "More than the Sum:
Mobilising the Whole Council and its Partners to Support School
Success" notes:
"improving the prospects of the most
disadvantaged pupils in schools is not a matter for schools alone...
. The council as a whole, along with its wider partners, has a
key role in helping to create the infrastructure and conditions
which maximise schools' chances of success. School improvement
and renewal are inseparable issues from neighbourhood improvement
and renewal, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas."
18. Although individual school inspection
reports feed into the evaluation of a local authority's children's
services provision, the contribution made by the local authority
is not a factor when assessing individual schools. The inclusion
of the ECM indicators within the school evaluation framework would
suggest that this situation needs to be reviewed.
Is it possible for Ofsted to gather hard
data within individual schools on the five Every Child Matters
outcomes, when they are equally dependent on what happens outside
the school, in pupils' homes and local communities? Why is the
contribution of the local authority children's services not a
factor in the evaluation of the school's performance in terms
of the Every Child Matters indicators?
19. HMCI notes in paragraphs 213 and 215
the relationship between primary pupils' enjoyment of their education
and the extent to which teaching is focused on preparing for national
tests in English and mathematics. In addition, Ofsted's evaluation
of the fifth year of the Primary National Strategy, which is summarised
on page 53, is critical of schools which "gave too great
an emphasis to supporting teachers and pupils in Years 5 and 6
in improving outcomes at the end of Key Stage 2, to the detriment
of earlier support", suggesting that the achievement
of those pupils is disadvantaged.
What remedies does HMCI think should be put
in place which would address this imbalance?
20. HMCI refers to the "experience
of English becoming narrower in certain years as teachers focused
on tests and examinations" and to the fact that this affected
pupils' achievement in speaking and listening in particular.
Does not HMCI consider that this is a fundamental
criticism of high stakes test and examinations themselves? Does
she believe that there should be a review of the impact of summative
testing on young people's learning?
EARLY YEARS
INSPECTION
21. The Government's recent Action Plan
for the Ten Year Childcare Strategy announced the target of one
early Years Professional (EYP) in every Children's Centre by 2010
and one in every full day care setting by 2015. It made no reference,
however, to the Government's previous commitment, via its planning
guidance for Children's Centres, to working toward the employment
of a qualified teacher in every Centre on a full time basis. The
recently published Early Years Professional Prospectus, issued
by the Children's Workforce Development Council (CWDC) also refers
only to the Government's target relating to EYPs.
22. The Action Plan explained that the EYP
would not be the leader of a setting but would take "a
professional leading role". This role is currently undertaken
by teachers who provide input into early years settings' educational
provision.
23. This is particularly relevant in terms
of the staffing ratios recently proposed by Government in the
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) consultation document, which
Ofsted would be required to inspect. The NUT does not agree that
QTS is not equivalent to EYP status or another "relevant"
Level 6 qualification in relation to staffing ratios for the educational
element of the EYFS. The professional knowledge and skills gained
during a B.Ed or PGCE cannot be compared to the EYP training course,
which might take as little as three months to complete.
24. Independent research shows that qualified
teachers are best for improving the life chances of young children.
The Government-funded Effective Provision of Pre-School Education
(EPPE) research from the Universities of Oxford and London shows
that settings which had more substantial numbers of trained teachers
provided the highest quality care and education. Whilst identifying
a clear link between level of qualification and quality of provision,
it was reported that the quality of practitioners' knowledge and
understanding of curriculum and pedagogy was vital and that trained
teachers were the most effective in their interactions with children.
25. The NUT believes that all early years
settings should contain a rich range of staff who work as a team.
Early years teams should include qualified teachers, early years
professionals, nursery officers and specialist support staff.
This range of expertise is vital if all the social, emotional
and learning needs of very young children are to be met. Early
years education is too important to be delivered on the cheap.
One type of professional cannot substitute for the other.
26. The NUT has had serious concerns about
the EYP since it was announced. Its concerns are not about preserving
the status quo, but about ensuring that the highest quality of
education provision in the early years is available to all children,
given its importance to their later academic performance. The
new emphasis on literacy in the early years, arising from the
Rose Review, makes this even more essential.
27. There is an urgent need to clarify,
therefore, the relationship between the EYP status and QTS. Government
itself appears to be confused about this issue. Lord Adonis, speaking
during the second reading of the Childcare Bill in the House of
Lords on 4 May 2006, said:
"I cannot stress too strongly enough
that there is no plot, whatever the National Union of Teachers
may say, by us to have qualified teachers playing a lesser role
in early years settings than is the case today."
although Alan Johnson, Secretary of State, said at
the Daycare Trust's Annual Conference on 8 November 2006 that
"The EYP is the QTS of the early years".
28. The NUT does not agree that the two
qualifications are interchangeable. QTS is not equivalent to EYP
status or another "relevant" Level 6 qualification in
relation to staffing ratios for the educational element of the
EYFS. The professional knowledge and skills gained during a B.Ed
or PGCE cannot be compared to the EYP training course which might
take as little as three months to complete.
29. Notwithstanding the new focus on the
integration of early years care and education services, introduced
by the Childcare Act, where provision is deemed to be "education",
it should be provided by a qualified teacher. As indicated above,
there is a wealth of research evidence to support this view, complimented
by the evidence of practice in a number of other countries which
are generally regarded as having high quality early years provision,
such as the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. To minimise
the importance of QTS within the early years would be a retrograde
step which could jeopardise the advances made in the quality of
provision over recent years.
Does HMCI believe that it is important to
retain qualified teachers as part of the early years team, rather
than replace them with Early Years Professionals? Is she concerned
that the employment of Early Years Professionals rather than qualified
teachers will impact negatively on the quality of early education
provision, particularly in Children's Centres?
30. Paragraph eight of HMCI's Annual Report
2005-06 says that over half of early years settings "provide
a good or outstanding quality of care and education for children".
More detailed information on the effectiveness of provision generally
is contained within Figure 3 of the Annual Report, whilst Figure
4 covers the overall quality of childcare by type of provider.
Why does the Annual Report not contain a
breakdown of effectiveness of early education by types of setting
or provider, comparable to Figure 4, as in previous years? Is
HMCI aware of the type of setting which consistently provides
the highest quality of early years provision in each of the categories
used in Figure 3? Does HMCI have a view on why quality of early
education has the second lowest ranking for effectiveness? How
do these findings relate to those reported in paragraph 25, that
"most of the nursery schools inspected are good or outstanding"?
What factors can HMCI identify that make such a difference in
these inspection judgements? What implications do they have for
the future of early years education provision?
THE EDUCATION
AND INSPECTION
ACT
31. School Improvement Partners (SIPs) appear
to have a pivotal role in the implementation of part 4 of the
Act, relating to schools causing concern in England. In particular,
SIPs will have a significant impact on the extent to which local
authority powers of intervention could be used.
32. The NUT has serious concerns about the
development of the SIPs initiative. When they were first announced,
they were described by Government as "critical friends"
to schools. Since then, however, their role has evolved substantially
and has become essentially adversarial, militating against the
establishment of trust and friendship, as SIPs will inevitably
see themselves as primarily accountable to the local authority
and the National Strategies, not to the school.
33. The revised intervention powers contained
in the Act, in particular the reduction in the amount of time
schools causing concern would have to respond to the warning notices
issued by local authorities, will inevitably mean that councils
will rely on SIPs to provide them with the information they need
to exercise their powers. SIPs will be under enormous pressure
to act as quasi-Ofsted inspectors conducting preliminary school
inspections.
34. In this situation, head teachers will
find it very hard not to see SIPs as yet another externally imposed
accountability measure rather than as a source of support.
35. In addition, existing local authority
services are also likely to come under pressure. Effective local
authorities target their services to schools that need them most
while fostering networks of good practice and knowledge across
schools. The idea of a single person with Olympian qualities sufficient
to substitute for the rich, specialist range of services which
local authorities make available to schools, is absurd. It is
a one-size-fits-all approach to school improvement which sits
very oddly with the idea of tailored and personalised learning
for young people.
36. The NUT believes that it was unwise,
therefore, to rely on the role of SIPs to secure the implementation
of the Act, especially given that their role has been established
very recently, not all schools have SIPs yet and there has been
no national evaluation of their effectiveness. This is unlikely
to be available in the near future, as the national role out of
SIPs for secondary schools was only completed in September 2006
and SIPs for all primary schools will not be in place until September
2008.
37. There also appears to be a lack of coherence
between the role of SIPs and Ofsted's proposal to extended its
monitoring to schools deemed "satisfactory but with pockets
of underachievement". Such arrangements would be frankly,
"overkill"—interim monitoring by the local authority,
SIP, National Strategies personnel as well as Ofsted will achieve
nothing other than an increase in stress in schools and a duplication
of existing information. The focus must be on harnessing the expertise
of these various organisations into an effective and coherent
programme of support and development, which emphasises the importance
of building a school's capacity for its own improvement work.
Is HMCI comfortable with the role of School
Improvement Partners (SIPs)? Does HMCI have plans to evaluate
the impact of SIPs on schools' management, leadership and standards?
Would HMCI agree that SIPs are, in effect, Ofsted's "territorial
army", a sub-contracted version of additional inspectors?
Does HMCI think that SIPs will provide local authorities and Ofsted
with the same high quality information that trained HMIs offer
currently?
38. The "New Relationship with Schools"
agenda was first announced by David Miliband, then Minister for
School Standards, in January 2004. It was presented as a Government
initiative to deliver an "intelligent accountability"
framework and a simplified school improvement process. The following
month, Ofsted published its own consultation document "The
Future of Inspection", which set out how its approach to
school inspection would be reconfigured in light of this policy
shift.
39. In June 2004, a joint DfES/Ofsted document
"A New Relationship with Schools" was published, which
contained the outcomes of the Ofsted consultation exercise as
well as detailed information on the other two strands of the New
Relationship with Schools. In a joint foreword by David Miliband
and David Bell, the policy was described as "our vision
for a new relationship between government and schools."
(NUT's emphasis) Whilst acknowledging that Ofsted should be consulted
fully on policy developments which would impact significantly
on its work, this close involvement in the active development
of Government policy is a matter of concern.
40. In addition, the NUT has learnt recently
that Ofsted will not be undertaking an evaluation of the Academies
initiative, following Government's advice that the research programme
it has commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers is sufficient
for its monitoring purposes. As the Committee knows, the Academies
programme has become highly controversial and politicised. Independent
scrutiny by Ofsted, drawing on its published inspection reports
and other monitoring documentation, would provide valuable information
about the success of the initiative.
In HMCI's view, how appropriate are Academies
as the solution to the types of problems identified by Ofsted
which lead to schools being placed in special measures? What are
HMCI's first impressions of Ofsted's relationship with Government?
How independent is Ofsted? Is HMCI able to speak "without
fear or favour"?
41. HMCI does not refer to the Government's
Academies initiative in her Commentary and comment s on Academies
in only one paragraph of the Annual Report (paragraph 32).
Bearing in mind that Academies are Government's
flagship initiative, does she believe Academy status, of itself,
will raise standards?
42. Draft guidance on schools causing concern
was issued by the DfES in April 2006, to provide details of the
practical interpretation of the Act's provisions. This document
stated that after one year in special measures, "the strong
presumption at this point will be that the school should be replaced
unless the local authority is able to make a very convincing case
why an alternative solution that has not yet been implemented
would result in better outcomes for the pupils at the school."
Local authorities will, obviously, have aimed to identify the
best course of action originally—the required progress may
simply not be achievable within 12 months.
43. Furthermore, if "major difficulties
at any monitoring visit" were identified, the Secretary
of State would be able to issue a notice that the case had become
"urgent". This could mean that a school in special measures
could be closed after just six months. This is an unacceptably
short period of time in order to secure improvement.
44. These proposed new arrangements are
contrary to evidence about the nature of effective school improvement.
The National Audit Office report "Improving Poorly Performing
Schools in England", commissioned by the DfES and published
in 2005, noted that "turning a school around takes time
and can be expensive". It found that "Of the
schools that do not close soon after going in to Special Measures,
currently less than 10% make a full recovery within 12 months,
although around two-thirds of the schools make at least reasonable
progress over the first 12 months."
45. In addition, there is evidence to suggest
that the current time scales are appropriate and realistic. Only
5% of schools that recover from Special Measures after two years
are assessed by Ofsted as "unsatisfactory" or worse
two years later, while 60% of them are assessed as good or better.
HMCI's Annual Report 2004-05 states that "gradual improvements
in national test and examination results"(NUT's emphasis)
can be observed in most such schools over time (Paragraph 107).
Two years would therefore appear to be the minimum for the kinds
of change which need to become embedded in school practice if
improvements are to be sustained.
Does HMCI agree that one year is sufficient
time to turn around a "failing school" and introduce
sustainable improvement, as Government claims?
46. Paragraph 69 of the Annual Report notes
"the higher overall average recovery time for schools
taken out of the category (special measures) in 2005-06"
and that "the average recovery time for primary schools
is shorter than that for secondary schools."
Could HMCI specify the actual average recovery
time for primary and secondary schools placed in special measures?
Would HMCI agree that the "one size fits all" recovery
time suggested by the DfES in its draft guidance on schools causing
concern is unrealistic and unhelpful?
47. The Commentary to HMCI's Annual Report
celebrates the achievements of the majority of maintained schools
whilst raising concerns about the one in 12 schools where "persistent
weaknesses remain".
How does this view relate to that expressed
by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently, which
suggested that over 1,500 schools were failing? What percentage
of secondary schools are actually failing, as opposed to requiring
special measures? Would HMCI agree with the Public Accounts Committee
that Ofsted needs to do more to support schools at risk of failure?
Would HMCI expand on her comment later in the Commentary that
"it may well be that the answer in the most challenging of
neighbourhoods will be not more of the same but something different"?
48. HMCI notes in the Commentary that "good
leadership and management are also crucial" in terms
of the success of schools.
To what extent does HMCI believe that current
difficulties in recruiting and retaining head teachers is affecting
the performance of schools in the most challenging circumstances?
What does HMCI think could be done to make headship in such schools
more attractive? Does HMCI agree with the view expressed in some
quarters, that head teachers do not necessarily need to have an
educational background? What impact, if any, does she think that
such head teachers might have on educational standards?
November 2006
| 
