Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence


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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 12 July 2007