Further 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 extended role of Ofsted
as The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services
and Skills; the new Strategic Plan for 2007-10; and the work of
Ofsted generally.
There are a number of questions which arise
from the submission which members of the Committee may wish to
consider in their interview with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
(HMCI) and the Chair of the Ofsted Board. These questions are
as follows:
— Given that the new Ofsted has
brought together all forms of educational provision within a single
body, how confident are HMCI and the Chair that inspectors are
deployed appropriately and that the distinctive expertise of each
of the previous inspectorates has not been lost?
— Would HMCI and the Chair explain
why the existing support services offered by ALI and CSCI were
discontinued following their merger with the new Ofsted?
— Are HMCI and the Chair monitoring
the effects of the merger of the inspectorates on service providers
and users, in particular in terms of the support services offered
previously by individual inspectorates? Can they report on any
early findings?
— How would HMCI and the Chair describe
their working relationship?
— Would HMCI and the Chair expand
upon the criteria which were used to select board members?
— Do HMCI and the Chair know how
many board members have direct experience of (a) inspection by
one of the predecessor inspectorates and (b) working in the public
sector?
— Would HMCI and the Chair explain
how the appointment of board members by the Secretary of State
is consistent with Ofsted's status as a non-ministerial Government
agency? Is there not a danger that these arrangements could compromise
Ofsted's independence and its ability to report "without
fear or favour"?
— Would the Chair describe the relationship
which she and other members of the Board have with Government
and with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)?
— Would HMCI describe the relationship
she has with the DfES and Government, including the Prime Minister,
in particular the influence if any these have on the priorities
and practices of Ofsted?
— On what evidence do HMCI and the
Chair base their assertion in the introduction to the Strategic
Plan that Ofsted is one of the "most trusted names in the
public sector"?
— Would HMCI expand upon what Ofsted's
"important relationship" with Additional Inspectors
and with private inspection service providers actually means in
practice?
— How satisfied is HMCI and the
Chair with the consistency of inspections undertaken by Additional
Inspectors?
— Does HMCI have any evidence of
a correlation between schools' and other settings' complaints
about inspection and whether they were led by HMI or Additional
Inspectors?
— Could HMCI explain what will be
"new" about the partnership contracts between Ofsted
and private inspection service providers, which is suggested as
a possible target on page 21 of the Strategic Plan? Which areas
of the partnership does HMCI believe are in most urgent need of
addressing?
— Would HMCI explain how inspections
"incentivise improvement and help services to become more
effective", other than by simply listing areas of weakness
and by the fear of punitive consequences following a poor Ofsted
report?
— Would HMCI outline to the Committee
the evidence, both internal and external, which Ofsted has provided
of its effectiveness and value for money to date?
— Would HMCI and the Chair agree
that, in order to make judgements about Ofsted's effectiveness
and value for money, it is necessary to have data about the costs
of inspection per institution, rather than only on a system-wide
basis?
— Would HMCI and the Chair explain
how, given that local authorities and other local providers are
the main sources of support for "failing" schools, Ofsted
will identify its own contribution to improving the quality of
educational provision?
— Would HMCI explain the process
by which Ofsted advises Government on policy development? Are
Ofsted constrained in any way by Government on which areas of
policy it may offer advice?
— Does HMCI agree that private companies
can provide better evaluation of Government education strategies
than Ofsted on key aspects of Government education policy such
as School Improvement Partners and the Academies programme? Does
HMCI feel that Ofsted has been "sidelined" and prevented
from investigating controversial Government initiatives?
— Why, in HMCI's opinion, do more
schools not complete the post-inspection questionnaire? What steps
have Ofsted taken to improve response rates?
— Can HMCI give any examples of
how issues raised via the post-inspection questionnaire have been
acted upon?
— Would HMCI and the Chair agree
that there is a substantial degree of risk attached to taking
an overly proportionate approach to inspection?
— How would HMCI respond to the
view that the unintended consequence of such an approach would
be to exacerbate the problems experienced by weaker provision,
such as staffing recruitment and retention difficulties and polarised
pupil intake?
— Would HMCI agree that it would
be timely to enter into a public debate about the future format
of school inspection arrangements?
— Would HMCI and the Chair explain
how and why the six areas of work and their associated outcomes
and targets included in the Strategic Plan were identified? What,
if any, is the significance of the 2010 milestone for the proposed
targets?
— Would HMCI and the Chair explain
how the specified percentages will be determined and which, if
any, groups or organisations will influence the setting of these
targets?
— Would HMCI and the Chair outline
what would be the consequences of Ofsted failing to meet specific
targets?
— Do HMCI and the Chair believe
there is a danger that, as in other areas of the public sector,
the introduction of targets will eventually drive practice rather
than inform it?
— Does HMCI believe that it is possible
for Ofsted to gather hard data within individual schools on the
five Every Child Matters indicators, when they are equally dependent
on what happens outside school, in pupils' homes and local communities?
— Why is the contribution of the
local authority's children's services not a factor in the evaluation
of schools' performance in terms of the Every Child Matters indicators?
— Would HMCI confirm whether any
schools have been placed in a category of concern due to shortcomings
in any of the Every Child Matters indicators other than "enjoying
and achieving"?
FULL SUBMISSION
1. This submission from the National Union
of Teachers (NUT) focuses on issues arising from the extended
role of Ofsted as The Office for Standards in Education, Children's
Services and Skills; the new Strategic Plan for 2007-10; and the
work of Ofsted generally.
2. As the NUT responded fully to the Committee's
last annual scrutiny, which took place in November 2006, it will
not rehearse the issues it raised on that occasion concerned with
Section 5 inspections, early years inspections or relevant provision
within the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
THE EXTENDED
ROLE OF
OFSTED
3. The most productive form of inspection
is undoubtedly one in which inspection teams understand the processes
at work and have the appropriate qualifications, training and
experience. Anecdotal evidence on joint Ofsted and Adult Learning
Inspectorate (ALI) inspections, however, has suggested that misunderstandings
have arisen as a result of inspectors' lack of experience in,
for example, adult or VI form academic provision.
Given that the new Ofsted has brought together
all forms of educational provision within a single body, how confident
are HMCI and the Chair that inspectors are deployed appropriately
and that the distinctive expertise of each of the previous inspectorates
has not been lost?
4. Two of the predecessor inspectorates,
ALI and the Commission for Social Care Inspections (CSCI) offered
active support to providers, for example, CSCI worked closely
with senior local authority staff to monitor local plans and progress.
These developmental functions have been lost under the new arrangements.
Would HMCI and the Chair explain why the
existing support services offered by ALI and CSCI were discontinued
following their merger with the new Ofsted?
Are HMCI and the Chair monitoring the effects
of the merger of the inspectorates on service providers and users,
in particular in terms of the support services offered previously
by individual inspectorates? Can they report on any early findings?
5. The establishment of a statutory board
and non-Executive Chair for the new Ofsted was intended, according
to the consultation document which proposed their creation, to
provide an additional means of holding HMCI accountable, as well
as providing support in terms of policy direction and internal
management arrangements. The success of this development will
obviously be dependent upon the quality of the personnel involved.
How would HMCI and the Chair describe their
working relationship?
Would HMCI and the Chair expand upon the
criteria which were used to select board members?
Do HMCI and the Chair know how many board
members have direct experience of (a) inspection by one of the
predecessor inspectorates and (b) working in the public sector?
6. The Education and Inspections Act 2006
provided for the establishment of the Ofsted board and for its
non-executive members to be appointed directly by the Secretary
of State for Education and Skills. Ofsted was created as a non-ministerial
Government agency, however, to be independent rather than be run
by Government.
Would HMCI and the Chair explain how the
appointment of board members by the Secretary of State is consistent
with Ofsted's status as a non-ministerial Government agency? Is
there not a danger that these arrangements could compromise Ofsted's
independence and its ability to report "without fear or favour"?
Would the Chair describe the relationship
which she and other members of the Board have with Government
and with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)?
Would HMCI describe the relationship she
has with the DfES and Government, including the Prime Minister,
in particular the influence if any these have on the priorities
and practices of Ofsted?
THE NEW
STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR 2007-10
7. In the introduction to the Strategic
Plan, HMCI and the Chair assert that the new inspectorate "retains
one of the best known and trusted names in the public sector"
(page 4). A range of research, however, including that undertaken
by the NUT which is attached as Annex A to this submission, indicates
that teachers and head teachers who have experienced Ofsted school
inspections do not have a high level of trust in the inspection
process, most commonly because of variations in the quality of
inspectors and the "snap shot" nature of the inspection
process.
On what evidence do HMCI and the Chair base
their assertion in the introduction to the Strategic Plan that
Ofsted is one of the "most trusted names in the public sector"?
8. The Strategic Plan says "we have
an important relationship with Additional Inspectors and with
private inspection service providers who work with Ofsted to manage
the inspections of maintained schools, some independent schools
and further education colleges" (Page 13). It goes on
to report "the contracted inspectors who work on Ofsted's
behalf deliver an efficient and effective service" (Page
21).
9. The experience of the NUT, gained though
casework and the support it has provided to its members would
suggest, as noted above, a rather different perception amongst
those who have been inspected. It is often the quality and consistency
of Additional Inspectors and private inspection service providers,
rather than HMI, which has caused problems in relation to the
conduct and outcomes of inspection.
Would HMCI expand upon what Ofsted's "important
relationship" with Additional Inspectors and with private
inspection service providers actually means in practice?
How satisfied is HMCI and the Chair with
the consistency of inspections undertaken by Additional Inspectors?
Does HMCI have any evidence of a correlation
between schools' and other settings' complaints about inspection
and whether they were led by HMI or Additional Inspectors?
Could HMCI explain what will be "new"
about the partnership contracts between Ofsted and private inspection
service providers, which is suggested as a possible target on
page 21 of the Strategic Plan? Which areas of the partnership
does HMCI believe are in most urgent need of addressing?
10. The Strategic Plan makes a number of
references to inspection being a catalyst for improvement. For
example, it says that inspections "incentivise improvement
and help services to become more effective" (page 9);
"provide encouragement and incentive for others to improve"
(page 11); and "helps providers improve and avoid complacency"
(page 16). Two of the most common criticisms of the Ofsted inspection
system, however, are that it is punitive in nature and not supportive
or developmental.
11. As the Committee knows from previous
submissions, it has been a matter of long standing concern for
the NUT that Ofsted has focused exclusively on "challenge"
rather than providing schools and other settings support to aid
improvement. Indeed, the NUT believes that Ofsted inspection has
failed to bring about sustained improvement precisely because
of its separation from developmental support and from schools'
and other settings' own improvement work.
12. Instead, inspection has been used as
a means of policing the education system. Despite the inclusion
of elements of self evaluation, inspection is still done to, rather
than with, school communities and other forms of children's services
provision.
Would HMCI explain how inspections "incentivise
improvement and help services to become more effective",
other than by simply listing areas of weakness and by the fear
of punitive consequences following a poor Ofsted report?
13. The Strategic Plan claims that Ofsted
"provide(s) evidence about whether money is spent wisely
and whether investment is producing results" (page 9).
An on-going concern expressed by the Committee in recent years
is the lack of clear evidence about the value for money of Ofsted's
activities, in particular the link between inspection and school
improvement.
14. In addition, the NUT has attempted,
without success, to clarify the average cost of a primary and
secondary school inspection. The NUT was told by Ofsted that this
information was not available, partly because of the proportionate
inspection system, which made an "average" inspection
difficult to define and partly because of the need for confidentiality
in Ofsted's dealings with commercial inspection providers.
15. The targets proposed to demonstrate
Ofsted's impact on standards include a reduction in inadequate
provision and increases in the rates of progress made by provision
which was previously judged to be inadequate (Page 16). No detail
is provided, however, on how this will be assessed accurately,
given the range of partners involved in school improvement and
intervention strategies.
Would HMCI outline to the Committee the evidence,
both internal and external, which Ofsted has provided of its effectiveness
and value for money to date?
Would HMCI and the Chair agree that, in order
to make judgements about Ofsted's effectiveness and value for
money, it is necessary to have data about the costs of inspection
per institution, rather than only on a system-wide basis?
Would HMCI and the Chair explain how, given
that local authorities and other local providers are the main
sources of support for "failing" schools, Ofsted will
identify its own contribution to improving the quality of educational
provision?
16. The Strategic Plan stresses on a number
of occasions the importance of Ofsted's function of providing
advice to Government, for example, "our contribution in
informing policy development" (page 11); "we
use what we learn from our objective analysis to advise providers
and policy makers on what works" (page 9); and "we
investigate new initiatives and good practice so that our findings
can inform their implementation and development" (page
14).
17. As the Committee might be aware, however,
Ofsted will not be undertaking an evaluation of two of the Government's
most significant initiatives in recent years, School Improvement
Partners (SIPs) and the Academies programme. The Government has
instead commissioned evaluations from two private sector companies,
York Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers respectively, to undertake
this work and has stated that this will be sufficient for its
monitoring purposes.
18. As the Committee knows, the Academies
programme has become highly controversial and politicised. Claims
have been made consistently that Academy status of itself raises
standards. This claim needs examining. SIPs have a pivotal role
in the implementation of Part 4 of the Education and Inspections
Act 2006, relating to schools causing concern and will have a
significant impact on the extent to which local authority powers
of intervention are able to be used. It would be reasonable to
expect that independent scrutiny by Ofsted, drawing on its published
inspection reports and other monitoring activities, would provide
invaluable information about the impact of both of these initiatives.
Would HMCI explain the process by which Ofsted
advises Government on policy development? Are Ofsted constrained
in any way by Government on which areas of policy it may offer
advice?
Does HMCI agree that private companies can
provide better evaluation of Government education strategies than
Ofsted on key aspects of Government education policy such as School
Improvement Partners and the Academies programme? Does HMCI feel
that Ofsted has been "sidelined" and prevented from
investigating controversial Government initiatives?
19. The Strategic Plan says that Ofsted
"consult(s) service users and stakeholders regularly
to ensure not only that we are focusing our work effectively but
also that we are coherent and comprehensible for those inspected"
(Page 14). Ofsted has reported elsewhere, however, that returns
of questionnaires by schools which have received an inspection
are relatively low (approximately 34% response rate).
Why, in HMCI`s opinion, do more schools not
complete the post-inspection questionnaire? What steps have Ofsted
taken to improve response rates?
Can HMCI give any examples of how issues
raised via the post-inspection questionnaire have been acted upon?
20. A key action to achieve Ofsted's first
priority," impact", is to "ensure that our frameworks
for inspection, regulation and self evaluation focus sharply on
weaker provision" (Page 16). Judgements on whether provision
is "weak" are made on the evidence available from performance
data, however, with all of the dangers inherent of relying too
heavily on such an approach.
21. The further streamlining of inspection
arrangements implied by the Strategic Plan would suggest that
a review of the entire inspection regime if now needed. One model,
on which the NUT has submitted detailed evidence to the Committee
previously, would be to combine Ofsted's emphasis on achieving
accurate and rigorous view of an institution's effectiveness with
a proper engagement with service users and providers, on the procedures
it uses to assess its strengths and weaknesses and its plans for
improvement. Such a model would promote ownership of the inspection
process by those who are subject to it or are its intended audience
and build capacity for improvement within settings, thus representing
greater value for money than current arrangements.
Would HMCI and the Chair agree that there
is a substantial degree of risk attached to taking an overly proportionate
approach to inspection?
How would HMCI respond to the view that the
unintended consequence of such an approach could be to exacerbate
the problems experienced by weaker provision, such as staffing
recruitment and retention difficulties and polarised pupil intake?
Would HMCI agree that it would be timely
to enter into a public debate about the future format of school
inspection arrangements?
22. The Strategic Plan contains for the
first time six priority areas of work and, for each, a programme
of related activities, desired outcomes and possible targets for
2010.
23. In addition, most of the proposed targets
contained within the Strategic Plan include, for the first time,
references to "a specified high percentage" of
particular outcomes, which are to be identified at a later date.
Would HMCI and the Chair explain how and
why the six areas of work and their associated outcomes and targets
included in the Strategic Plan were identified? What, if any,
is the significance of the 2010 milestone for the proposed targets?
Would HMCI and the Chair explain how the
specified percentages will be determined and which, if any, groups
or organisations will influence the setting of these targets?
Would HMCI and the Chair outline what would
be the consequences of Ofsted failing to meet specific targets?
Do HMCI and the Chair believe there is a
danger that, as in other areas of the public sector, the introduction
of targets for Ofsted will eventually drive practice rather than
inform it?
THE WORK
OF OFSTED
24. Although the new inspectorate has brought
together the inspection of children's social care, local authority
children's services and educational provision, there has been
little significant change to the focus of inspection for schools.
Despite the inclusion of references to the five Every Child Matters
(ECM) outcomes as part of school evaluation requirements, most
refer to "enjoying and achieving", with arguably more
emphasis on the latter half of that outcome.
25. 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 what is easily measurable. Fundamental
questions, such as the happiness, well-being and engagement of
individual and groups of 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.
26. 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 (i.e. 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?"
27. This exemplifies the difficulties 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 ECM
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.
28. In addition, the inclusion of the ECM
indicators in the inspection evaluation criteria is predicted
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 2006 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."
29. 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.
Does HMCI believe that it is possible for
Ofsted to gather hard data within individual schools on the five
Every Child Matters indicators, when they are equally dependent
on what happens outside school, in pupils' homes and local communities?
Why is the contribution of the local authority's
children's services not a factor in the evaluation of schools'
performance in terms of the Every Child Matters indicators?
Would HMCI confirm whether any schools have
been placed in a category of concern due to shortcomings in any
of the Every Child Matters indicators other than "enjoying
and achieving"?
April 2007
| 
