Annex A
NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS OFSTED INSPECTION
SURVEY 2007
SUMMARY OF
FINDINGS
Introduction
1. This survey was conducted in autumn 2006.
It was sent to a random sample of 1,000 nursery, primary, secondary
and special school teachers, including head teachers, whose school
had received an Ofsted inspection in the previous year under the
2005 Ofsted inspection framework. 367 questionnaires were returned,
giving a response rate of 36.7%.
2. A number of questions which appeared
in the 2006 survey were used previously in a NUT survey of members
in spring 2004, which sought members' views on the proposed new
arrangements for school inspections, as well as on their experience
of the last Ofsted inspection their schools had received. Comparisons
between the two survey's findings are considered in Section C
of this summary report.
Section A: Views on the New Ofsted Inspection
Framework
3. Forty-four per cent of respondents have
mixed views on the fact that school inspections now focus on the
core subjects only. Thirty-three per cent, however, either oppose
or strongly oppose this and a further 23% either support or strongly
support this development.
4. More than half of respondents (59%) either
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the Ofsted inspection stimulated
help and support from external agencies. However, 21% either agreed
or strongly agreed and 20% had mixed views on this.
5. Seventy-six per cent either support or
strongly support the new "short notice" system of inspection.
Eighteen per cent have mixed views on it. Only 6% either oppose
or strongly oppose the reduced notice period for inspections.
6. Forty-nine per cent either support or
strongly support the reduction of the maximum period between school
inspections from six to three years. Thirty-four per cent of respondents,
however, have mixed views on this. Nineteen per cent either oppose
or strongly oppose.
7. The large majority (81%) either support
or strongly support the reduced duration of inspections, typically
two days for the majority of schools. Thirteen per cent have mixed
views on it. Only 6% either oppose or strongly oppose this.
8. The large majority (83%) either support
or strongly support the reduction in the number of lesson observations
for individual teachers. Fourteen per cent have mixed views on
it. Only 2% either oppose or strongly oppose this.
9. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents have
mixed views on the fact that some teachers are not observed at
all during the inspection. Twenty-eight per cent, however, either
support or strongly support this, with a further 24% either opposing
or opposing strongly this development.
10. Forty-one per cent of respondents have
mixed views on the separate Ofsted inspections for subjects and
other aspects of the curriculum. Thirty-four per cent, however,
either support or strongly support this, with a further 25% either
opposing or strongly opposing.
11. The majority of respondents (61%) either
support or strongly support the use of questionnaires to gather
the views of parents, rather than through meetings between inspectors
and parents as under the previous inspection arrangements. Twenty-nine
per cent have mixed views on it. Only 10% either oppose or strongly
oppose.
12. The majority of respondents (63%) either
support or strongly support the involvement of HM Inspectors of
Schools (HMI) in school inspections. Thirty-four per cent have
mixed views on it. Only 4% either oppose or strongly oppose their
involvement.
13. The large majority of respondents (86%)
either support or strongly support the reduction in the size of
inspection reports. Ten per cent have mixed views on it. Just
4% either oppose or strongly oppose this.
14. Almost half of respondents (48%) either
support or strongly support the introduction of a pupil letter
to accompany the school inspection report. Twenty-six per cent,
however, have mixed views on it with an additional 26% either
opposing or strongly opposing it.
15. The majority (74%) either support or
strongly support the use of the School Self Evaluation Form (SEF)
to provide the key evidence for the inspection. Twenty-one per
cent have mixed views. Just 5% either oppose or strongly oppose
the SEF.
16. Sixty-three per cent of respondents
either support or strongly support the use of the school's previous
inspection report and PANDA to inform inspectors' planning for
the inspection. Thirty per cent have mixed views. Only 7% either
oppose or strongly oppose.
17. The large majority of respondents (82%)
either support or strongly support the greater focus on the quality
of the school's leadership and management when making the overall
inspection judgment on the school. Fifteen per cent have mixed
views. Only 3% either oppose or strongly oppose it.
18. Forty-four per cent of respondents either
agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection had helped
their school. Thirty per cent, however, had mixed views. A further
26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
19. Over half of respondents (60%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection was an aid
to self-evaluation. Twenty-one per cent either disagreed or strongly
disagreed, and a further 19% had mixed views on this issue.
20. Almost half of the respondents (47%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection provided
an accurate assessment of the value added by the school. However,
28% had mixed views and 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
21. The majority of respondents (62%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection provided
an accurate judgment of the management of the school's resources.
Twenty-one per cent had mixed views on this. A further 17% either
disagreed or strongly disagreed.
22. The majority of respondents (67%) either
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the pre-inspection preparation
and the inspection itself had disrupted previously planned professional
development for staff. Twenty per cent either agreed or strongly
agreed and a further 13% had mixed views on it.
23. The majority of respondents (71%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspection arrangements
had reduced pre-inspection preparation. Sixteen per cent had mixed
views on this and a further 13% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
24. Over half of respondents (53%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspection arrangements
had reduced pre-inspection stress. Thirty-one per cent, however,
either disagreed or strongly disagreed and a further 16% had mixed
views.
25. Almost half of the respondents (48%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspection arrangements
had reduced the burden of inspection on schools. Twenty-seven
per cent, however, either disagreed or strongly disagreed and
a further 25% had mixed views.
26. Thirty-seven per cent of the respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspections presented
a more accurate picture of schools. However, 37% had mixed views
on this and a further 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
27. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents
had mixed views on whether the new inspections had stimulated
"more rapid improvements" in schools as Ofsted had claimed
when launching the new arrangements. However, 37% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed and a further 24% agreed on this.
28. The majority of respondents (75%) thought
that the new inspection arrangements, compared to their previous
experience of inspection, were either an improvement or a significant
improvement. Nineteen per cent had mixed views. Only 6% thought
that these new arrangements were either a worsening or significant
worsening compared to the previous system.
Section B: Perceptions of the Last Inspection
Experienced
29. Thirty-six per cent of respondents either
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the inspection was supportive
and motivated teachers. Thirty-five per cent, however, either
agreed or strongly agreed and a further 29% had mixed views.
30. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents were
not asked to do additional work specifically for the inspection.
Thirty-one per cent were asked to do so.
31. Fifty-two per cent either agreed or
strongly agreed that the preparation for the inspection created
significant additional workload. Thirty per cent either disagreed
or strongly disagreed. A further 18% had mixed views.
32. The majority of respondents (71%) either
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the preparation for the inspection
had generated additional classroom observations. Twenty-three
per cent either agreed or strongly agreed, with a further 7% expressing
mixed views.
33. Over half of the respondents (60%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the judgment of inspectors about
their school was fair and accurate. Twenty-one per cent had mixed
views. Eighteen per cent either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
34. More than half of respondents (58%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the combined experience
of the inspection team matched well with the inspection needs
of their school. Twenty-three per cent either disagreed or strongly
disagreed and a further 20% had mixed views on this issue.
35. The majority of respondents (65%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that inspectors took proper account
of the history of their school and the make up of its pupil population
when making judgements. Nineteen per cent either disagreed or
strongly disagreed and a further 16% had mixed views.
36. Sixty-seven per cent of respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that inspectors established a
professional dialogue with teachers. A further 18% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed. Sixteen per cent had mixed views.
37. The majority of respondents (60%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection team was balanced
in terms of experience relevant to the curriculum in their school.
Twenty per cent had mixed views. A further 19% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed with this view.
38. Over half of respondents (53%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection team was balanced
in terms of gender and ethnic group representation. However, 32%
either disagreed or strongly disagreed. A further 15% had mixed
views.
39. The large majority of respondents (84%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection took account
of their school's existing self-evaluation. Twelve per cent had
mixed views. Only 5% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
40. The majority of respondents (73%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the information inspectors gathered
from pupils about the school was useful in informing the inspection
findings. Seventeen per cent had mixed views. A further 9% either
disagreed or strongly disagreed.
41. Forty-two per cent of respondents either
agreed or strongly agreed that there were aspects of the school
which should have received more attention from the inspectors.
Thirty-three per cent, however, either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
A further 24% had mixed views.
42. The most commonly cited aspects of schools'
provision which were cited by respondents as in need of greater
attention during the inspection were the foundation subjects and
the ethos of the school, particularly as manifested by enrichment
activities and/or community links. Aspects of leadership and management,
particularly middle management and the importance of gaining teachers'
perspectives on the school's leadership, pastoral issues and SEN
were also regularly suggested by respondents as in need of more
emphasis during the inspection.
43. More than half of respondents (52%)
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that there were aspects
of their school which received too much attention from the inspectors.
However, 28% agreed or strongly agreed and 20% had mixed views.
44. The vast majority of respondents who
believed that there were aspects which had received too much attention
from inspectors raised issues about an over-emphasis on data.
Relatively few respondents believed too much time had been spent
on the core subjects or other aspects of schools' provision:
45. The large majority of respondents (84%)
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that pre-inspection preparation
and the inspection itself had disrupted activities for pupils
outside school. Nine per cent agreed and 7% had mixed views.
Section C: Comparison of Findings from the
NUT 2004 Ofsted Survey
46. Ofsted's focus on the core subjects
only during school inspections is far less popular with respondents
now than when it was first proposed. The proportion of respondents
supporting this development has reduced by half, from 47% in 2004
to 23% in 2006. Many more respondents now have mixed views about
this (44%, compared to 25% in 2004).
47. There is also a shift in perception
about the extent to which inspections are viewed as supportive
and motivating for teachers. Thirty-five per cent of respondents
now think that they are, compared to just 17% in 2004. Similarly,
36% of respondents disagreed, a considerable reduction from the
59% who held this view in 2004.
48. Support for the reduced period of notice
of inspections has grown. In 2004, respondents were divided on
the issue, with 42% in agreement with this change and almost a
third (31%) who disagreed. In 2006, almost half of respondents
support the development (49%) and only 6% oppose it.
49. Exactly the same proportion of respondents
from each survey (59%) disagreed with the statement that the Ofsted
inspection system stimulated help and support from external sources.
There was a 10% increase, however, in respondents who believed
this to be the case (21% in 2006).
50. Support for the reduced cycle of inspections,
from six to three years, has increased. In 2004, only 19% supported
this development, with 48% opposing it. In 2006, this situation
was reversed, with 49% supporting it and only 19% opposing it.
The number of respondents with mixed views on this issue has remained
almost constant.
51. Respondents continued to support the
reduced duration of inspection visits to schools. Agreement with
this development increased by 11% to 81% in 2006. Opponents of
the reduced duration declined by 1%, to 6% in 2006.
52. The new system of limited lesson observations
for individual teachers continued to be supported. Eighty-three
per cent now support this development, compared to 70% in 2004.
The proportion of respondents who held mixed views or opposed
this initiative both decreased, by 8% and 5% respectively.
53. The introduction of the Ofsted School
Self-Evaluation Form (SEF) has been problematic according to respondents.
Whilst there is still a high level of support for it (74%), this
is a reduction of 10% compared to 2004. More respondents now have
mixed views about it (21% compared to 13% in 2004).
54. More respondents now believe that their
school's existing self evaluation work is taken into account by
inspectors, an increase of 29% compared to 2004. Five per cent
disagreed in 2006, compared to 16% in 2004, with a further 12%
holding mixed views on the issue (compared to 27% in 2004).
55. Over half of respondents (52%) reported
that preparation for the inspection had created significant additional
workload in 2006. This was a considerable reduction compared to
2004, when 94% said that their workload had increased as a result
of inspection preparation. Only two per cent of respondents reported
that no additional work had been created; compared to 30% in 2006.
56. Respondents' opinions on the validity
of inspection judgements have also improved. Over half (60%) now
think that judgements are fair and accurate, compared to 38% in
2004. The proportion of respondents who do not hold this view
declined from 28% to 18% in 2006.
57. This may be linked to the findings that
more than half of respondents (58%) now believe the experience
of the inspection team is well matched to their school, compared
to less than a third (31%) in 2004. Twenty-three per cent of respondents
in 2006 were critical of their inspection team, compared to 34%
in 2004. In addition, there was an increase of 17% of respondents
who believed that the inspectors had established a professional
dialogue with teachers (67% in 2006), with an accompanying decrease
in the proportion of respondents who held mixed views on this
issue (16% compared to 27% in 2004).
58. The proportion of respondents who believed
the inspection team was balanced in terms of experience relevant
to the curriculum increased by 15% to 60% in 2006, with those
who held mixed views (20%) or disagreeing (19%) declining correspondingly
by 8% and 6% respectively compared to 2004.
59. Respondents also appeared slightly more
confident that the inspection covered the right things in the
right proportion. Thirty-three per cent felt that the coverage
was accurate, compared to 25% in 2004. A significant proportion,
however, still believed there were aspects of the school which
should have received more attention (42% compared to 51% in 2004).
In addition, 28% of respondents felt there were aspects of the
school which received too much attention from inspectors, compared
to 44% in 2004, with a further 52% disagreeing with this view,
compared to 27% in 2004).
60. There has been a significant growth
in support for the use of information gathered from pupils to
inform inspection findings. Almost three quarters of respondents
(73%) now support this aspect of inspection, compared to 45% in
2004. Opposition to the use of such information has decreased
by half, from 18% to 9% in 2006.
61. There also seems to be growing support
for the view that Ofsted inspections help schools improve. Forty-four
per cent of respondents in 2006 expressed this opinion, compared
to 12% in 2004. Fifty-seven per cent disagreed with this view
in 2004, compared to 26% in 2006.
62. It was felt that Ofsted inspections
were increasingly accurate in terms of assessing the value added
by the school, with 47% of respondents expressing this view, compared
to 29% in 2004. Twenty-six per cent, however, disagreed, compared
to 38% in 2004.
63. Respondents also believed increasingly
that inspection provided an accurate judgement of the school's
management of resources (62% compared to 36% in 2004).
64. When comparing their experiences of
inspection under the "old" and "new" frameworks,
71% of respondents stated that pre-inspection preparation had
been reduced, compared to 38% who believed that it would in 2004.
It was felt that the new arrangements were an improvement to the
previous system (75% compared to 37% who believed it would be).
65. This did not necessarily, however, lead
to a more accurate picture of schools according to respondents
in 2006. Thirty-seven per cent had mixed views and 26% disagreed
with this statement, compared to 28% and 36% respectively in 2004.
The proportion of respondents who believed the new arrangements
had led to more accuracy remained almost constant (37% compared
to 35% in 2004).
INTRODUCTION
This survey was conducted in autumn 2006. It
was sent to a random sample of 1,000 nursery, primary, secondary
and special school teachers, including head teachers, whose school
had received an Ofsted inspection in the previous year under the
2005 Ofsted inspection framework. 367 questionnaires were returned,
giving a response rate of 36.7%.
It is notable that a larger proportion of head
teacher members (47%) responded to this survey compared to similar
NUT surveys in previous years, which may account to some extent
for the significant changes in perceptions about Ofsted inspections
noted in Section C of this report.
The comments used to illustrate responses to
each of the questions are taken, in the main, from respondents'
comments at the end of the questionnaire. This section of the
questionnaire was frequently used to clarify, expand upon or qualify
responses given to specific survey questions. Whilst comments
tended to be more critical than the rankings given in response
to individual survey items, those used in this report are representative
of respondents' views overall.
Section A: Views on the New Ofsted Inspection
Framework
66. Seventy-six per cent either support
or strongly support the new "short notice" system of
inspection. Eighteen per cent have mixed views on it. Only 6%
either oppose or strongly oppose the reduced notice period for
inspections.
"It was better to have a shorter preparation
time leading up to the inspection but we still worked around the
clock to get things ready."
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
"The teachers took it in their stride
and were happy with the new approach. When we got the phone call
it was `bring it on', resounding around the school."
(Primary Head Teacher)
67. Forty-nine per cent either support or
strongly support the reduction of the maximum period between school
inspections from six to three years. Thirty-four per cent of respondents,
however, have mixed views on this. Nineteen per cent either oppose
or strongly oppose.
"Although an improvement, the pre-inspection
stress is now replaced by large periods of `in-readiness'—schools
try to be in a constant state of readiness for Ofsted or HMI subject
inspections therefore actually more constant (if lower level)
stress."
(Primary Head of Key Stage)
68. The large majority (81%) either support
or strongly support the reduced duration of inspections, typically
two days for the majority of schools. Thirteen per cent have mixed
views on it. Only 6% either oppose or strongly oppose this.
69. Most of the comments written about the
reduced period of time spent in school by inspectors were, however,
critical, including for respondents who had indicated support
for this development:
"The new, more ruthless expectations,
coupled with the shorter inspection framework, restrict the inspection's
capacity to really (a) assess the validity of a school's SEF vs
reality observed, and (b) support the school in moving forward.
Inspectors are under pressure to make sweeping generalisations
from samples that are too small and at risk of being invalid.
Within the climate of raising standards and the pressure to improve
performance in schools, the result is more stress due to the process
rather than in preparation. My Ofsted has set me back."
(Secondary Head Teacher)
"We have six classes and in 1½
days the inspector's time was stretched to the limit in order
to fulfil the remit of the inspection process. She constantly
said there wasn't enough time to discuss issues so we felt we
had been short changed."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Not enough time for professional dialogue
with the inspectors."
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
"Inspector was in for one day only and
criticised us for insufficient ICT use. We disagree and had the
inspection been more than one day (not that we really want that!)
he would have seen more aspects of ICT."
(Nursery Mainscale Teacher)
70. The large majority (83%) either support
or strongly support the reduction in the number of lesson observations
for individual teachers. Fourteen perecent have mixed views on
it. Only 2% either oppose or strongly oppose this.
"Other members of staff felt `deflated'
as they were not observed and felt the inspection had passed them
by."
(Primary Assistant Head Teacher)
"Some teachers felt `cheated' that they
were not observed."
(Special Head Teacher)
71. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents
have mixed views on the fact that some teachers are not observed
at all during the inspection. Twenty-eight per cent, however,
either support or strongly support this, with a further 24% either
opposing or opposing strongly this development.
"A few people had lots of inspection
time and conversation, some very little."
(Secondary Head of Department)
"Judgements made about teaching weren't
based on proper observations."
(Primary Mainscale Teacher)
"They were making judgements about teaching
and learning when not all teachers had been observed."
(Primary Head Teacher)
72. Forty-four per cent of respondents have
mixed views on the fact that school inspections now focus on the
core subjects only. Thirty-three per cent, however, either oppose
or strongly oppose this and a further 23% either support or strongly
support this development.
"Emphasis on achievement data or other
agenda left little time to consider the ethos of the school and
the foundation subjects."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Although the inspectors tried, they
were bogged down by data. The broad curriculum received recognition
through their distilled experience but the process militated against
it."
(Primary Head Teacher)
73. Forty-one per cent of respondents have
mixed views on the separate Ofsted inspections for subjects and
other aspects of the curriculum. Thirty-four per cent, however,
either support or strongly support this, with a further 25% either
opposing or strongly opposing.
74. The majority of respondents (61%) either
support or strongly support the use of questionnaires to gather
the views of parents, rather than through meetings between inspectors
and parents as under the previous inspection arrangements. Twenty-nine
per cent have mixed views on it. Only 10% either oppose or strongly
oppose.
75. The majority of respondents (63%) either
support or strongly support the involvement of HM Inspectors of
Schools (HMI) in school inspections. Thirty-four per cent have
mixed views on it. Only 4% either oppose or strongly oppose their
involvement.
"I feel we were desperately unlucky
in our team during the inspection in September 2005. They were
incompetent, ill-prepared and extremely rude! We were lucky that
there was an HMI in attendance on the second day, as we had issues
with the report which were not listened to by Ofsted but the report
was withdrawn on the instructions of the HMI until it was corrected."
(Primary Head Teacher)
76. The large majority of respondents (86%)
either support or strongly support the reduction in the size of
inspection reports. Ten per cent have mixed views on it. Just
4% either oppose or strongly oppose this.
77. Almost half of respondents (48%) either
support or strongly support the introduction of a pupil letter
to accompany the school inspection report. Twenty-six per cent,
however, have mixed views on it with an additional 26% either
opposing or strongly opposing it.
"I object strongly to the letter that
was sent to the pupils, stating `some of your writing is not good
enough, especially those of you who find it easy'."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
"Dependent on inspectors' familiarity
with children the same age. Letter needs to be informative, not
patronising and celebrate the children's success. I do not feel
it is appropriate to tell the children what the school's targets
are—they should just feel proud of what they have achieved."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
78. The majority (74%) either support or
strongly support the use of the School Self Evaluation Form (SEF)
to provide the key evidence for the inspection. Twenty-one per
cent have mixed views. Just 5% either oppose or strongly oppose
the SEF.
"Completing the staff evaluation form
and highlighting our targets was useful."
(Secondary Head of Department)
"The inspection confirmed our own findings
and praised our SEF for its accuracy."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
"The inspection team seemed happy to
confirm the school's SEF without invading space or disrupting
the life of the school."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"The SEF takes too much time away from
what leadership and management teams should be doing."
(Primary Head Teacher)
79. Sixty-three per cent of respondents
either support or strongly support the use of the school's previous
inspection report and PANDA to inform inspectors' planning for
the inspection. Thirty per cent have mixed views. Only 7% either
oppose or strongly oppose.
"Inspectors seem to have fixed views
of a department's worth before they come into school, based on
PANDA/results, etc."
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
"Our experience was very positive. The
lead inspector had made judgements which were quite inaccurate
due to misunderstanding our circumstances and role ... as he was
comparing us directly with mainstream provision."
(PRU Head Teacher)
"The lead inspector focussed only on
pupil progress from KS1 to KS2 in terms of our test results and
PANDA. Was not sympathetic to any suggested analysis from school
team."
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
80. The large majority of respondents (82%)
either support or strongly support the greater focus on the quality
of the school's leadership and management when making the overall
inspection judgment on the school. Fifteen per cent have mixed
views. Only 3% either oppose or strongly oppose it.
81. Written comments highlighted a particular
concern in the primary sector about governors being included in
inspectors' judgements about the quality of leadership and management:
"My only niggle was that `leadership
and management' would have been outstanding/good if we had a chair
of governors (we were between chairs—the previous one having
moved to London). I was told in the verbal feedback that they
would find it very difficult to rate leadership higher in the
absence of a chair—why??"
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Concern about governors being part
of leadership group in terms of judgements—when we have
difficulty recruiting and governors are not skilled or proactive
and do not have time to get fully involved in the life of the
school. They only spoke to our chair of governors, who felt intimidated
by them, as they asked very specific questions about hypothetical
situations, eg, what would you do if results fell drastically?
All our governors are supportive and work well as a team but do
not have confidence or professional expertise to answer all questions."
(Primary Head Teacher)
82. Forty-four per cent of respondents either
agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection had helped
their school. Thirty per cent, however, had mixed views. A further
26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
83. A number of respondents highlighted
the need for Ofsted to play some role in supporting schools which
it had judged to be failing. Others, by their annotations to this
question, clearly felt there was no connection between Ofsted
and the concept of school improvement:
"They put the school into special measures
and then walked away. The school was left feeling poorly assisted
by a fairly useless LA. Since then, eight members of staff have
had time off for stress-related illness. Ofsted has a moral responsibility
to assist a school in recovery from what it does to them! However,
they do not do this, they simply walk away ignoring the damage
they do."
(Special Mainscale Teacher)
"A very fair Ofsted team. Kind, helpful,
supportive."
(Infant Leadership Group)
"Our inspection team were very `human'.
They gave constructive feedback, praise and encouragement. It
was almost an enjoyable experience."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Isn't that only after the event? If
you go into a category?"
(Primary Head Teacher)
84. Over half of respondents (60%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection was an aid
to self-evaluation. Twenty-one per cent either disagreed or strongly
disagreed, and a further 19% had mixed views on this issue.
"Completing the SEF and highlighting
our targets was useful. Identifying how to reach our targets was
also useful but don't feel that Ofsted inspection added anything!"
(Secondary Head of Department)
85. Almost half of the respondents (47%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection provided
an accurate assessment of the value added by the school. However,
28% had mixed views and 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
"We spent the whole time convincing
them that the cohort they were basing their judgements on was
very poor and showing evidence that the next cohort were well
on track to do better. (They did). He (lead inspector) said a
number of times `It doesn't feel as though I should be worried
about this school but the data tells me that I should."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Not enough notice was taken of social
deprivation or the state that the children entered school. We
felt we were unfairly judged on standard learning."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"We had a very fair team who looked
beyond the PANDA and who recognised the value of work currently
being done."
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
86. The majority of respondents (62%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the Ofsted inspection provided
an accurate judgment of the management of the school's resources.
Twenty-one per cent had mixed views on this. A further 17% either
disagreed or strongly disagreed.
87. The majority of respondents (67%) either
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the pre-inspection preparation
and the inspection itself had disrupted previously planned professional
development for staff. Twenty per cent either agreed or strongly
agreed and a further 13% had mixed views on it.
88. More than half of respondents (59%)
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the Ofsted inspection
stimulated help and support from external agencies. However, 21%
either agreed or strongly agreed and 20% had mixed views on this.
"One of the areas they highlighted for
us to improve is almost impossible to do without extra funding
and a new school. Even the Ofsted team said they did not know
how we could achieve outdoor provision improvements for the foundation
stage when we are so limited by physical space. Naturally, as
usual, schools will do what it can. Perhaps the Government should
help more with resources."
(Infant Leadership Group)
"We need genuinely supportive (and honest)
school improvement partners to work consistently and creatively
with schools."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"The support we received post-Ofsted
has not helped the staff and school and significantly added to
our workload and stress levels."
(Primary Leadership Group)
89. The majority of respondents (71%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspection arrangements
had reduced pre-inspection preparation. Sixteen per cent had mixed
views on this and a further 13% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
"A much improved, less onerous experience."
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
"Preparation for inspection is `always
there' because you never really know when you are going to have
one."
(Primary Head Teacher)
90. Over half of respondents (53%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspection arrangements
had reduced pre-inspection stress. Thirty-one per cent, however,
either disagreed or strongly disagreed and a further 16% had mixed
views.
91. Whilst many agreed that stress levels
during the inspection had been reduced, others, particularly head
teachers, argued that stress had simply been transferred elsewhere:
"Switched the stress from before and
on the staff, to during and on the head. Some may say this is
correct but falling recruitment for heads, particularly in primary,
would suggest otherwise."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Ofsted's most recent 2-day inspection
was very `light touch' indeed. In fact, anxieties and pre-inspection
preparation were much more stressful than the actual inspection
itself. The idea of a coming inspection with short notice was
the cause of management anxieties about covering all eventualities
so that some work carried out in advance of the inspection was
very unnecessary and distracting."
(Special Head of Department)
"The Sword of Damocles hanging over
heads is not an improvement on the previous system."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Although in Question 18(b) I have ticked
`agree'. I do feel there will always be pre-inspection stress,
irrespective of a phone call a few days beforehand. Most schools
will know where they are in the cycle of a possible inspection
and this could still mean a year or more of stress for some staff.
For example, as a new head in January of my school, I was aware
the phone could go at any time in the coming months. Eleven months
later, it did—that's a long time to wait!"
(Primary Head Teacher)
92. Almost half of the respondents (48%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspection arrangements
had reduced the burden of inspection on schools. Twenty-seven
per cent, however, either disagreed or strongly disagreed and
a further 25% had mixed views.
"Pre-inspection preparation and anxieties
were much more stressful than the actual inspection itself."
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
"I am in favour of the new inspection
schedule and strongly believe that the burden is greatly reduced
for the classroom teachers and other staff."
(Secondary Head Teacher)
93. Thirty-seven per cent of the respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that the new inspections presented
a more accurate picture of schools. However, 37% had mixed views
on this and a further 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
"The findings were spot on and reflected
good practice and results."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Seemed to make sweeping statements
about departments based on results and a few `small scale' observations—which
may not be a true reflection of a department at the time of inspection."
(Special Head of Department)
"A very positive experience. Judgements
were accurate, well informed, ie, from SEF, parent survey, child
interview and really seemed to take `Every Child Matters' into
account."
(Primary Leadership Group)
94. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents
had mixed views on whether the new inspections had stimulated
`more rapid improvements' in schools as Ofsted had claimed when
launching the new arrangements. However, 37% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed and a further 24% agreed on this.
"The fall out from a poor inspection
has effectively become a self fulfilling prophecy with ¾
of staff leaving, worsening behaviour amongst children and a growing
culture of blame between the head and staff."
(Primary Mainscale Teacher)
95. The majority of respondents (75%) thought
that the new inspection arrangements, compared to their previous
experience of inspection, were either an improvement or a significant
improvement. Nineteen per cent had mixed views. Only 6% thought
that these new arrangements were either a worsening or significant
worsening compared to the previous system.
"Less stress and now can get a genuine
view of the school not the artificial one that can be produced
in six weeks."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"A much improved, less stressful experience."
(Secondary Head Teacher)
"It wasn't as bad as before—quite
positive in fact."
(PRU Deputy Head Teacher)
"I prefer the new inspections."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
"Better than before."
(Primary Head Teacher)
Section B: Perceptions of the Last Inspection
Experienced
96. Thirty-four per cent of respondents
reported that their school had received three days' notice of
the inspection and 26% five days' notice. Twenty-one per cent
received two days' notice and 14% four days. Five per cent received
six or more days' notice of the inspection.
97. Fifty-two per cent either agreed or
strongly agreed that the preparation for the inspection created
significant additional workload. Thirty per cent either disagreed
or strongly disagreed. A further 18% had mixed views.
98. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents were
not asked to do additional work specifically for the inspection.
Thirty-one per cent were asked to do so.
99. Amongst respondents who did indicate
that they had undertaken additional work for the inspection, the
collection and/or collation of evidence and/or data was the most
commonly cited by all respondents. For head teacher respondents,
the second most common driver of workload was reading inspection
documentation and preparing the SEF, whilst for Heads of Department/Subject
Co-ordinators, updating policies and schemes of work and, for
mainscale teachers, producing lesson plans were the second most
popular responses:
"To type up the SEF onto the website
even though I offered to e-mail our Word document to the inspector.
The inspector then couldn't access the website and didn't read
the SEF before having the contact meeting."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Revamp of internal tracking to better
counter the misleading effect of PANDA."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Gather certain information together
to grade teachers on their performance."
(Infant Head Teacher)
"More detailed lesson plans."
(Primary Mainscale Teacher)
"Look through the pre-inspection briefings
and comment/correct it."
(Secondary Head Teacher)
"Gathering evidence to make it easier
for inspectors."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Subject file, update policy, analysis
data."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
"Rewrite/update polcies, schemes of
work, records of pupil progress—even if they were already
up to date."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
100. The majority of respondents (71%) either
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the preparation for the inspection
had generated additional classroom observations. Twenty-three
per cent either agreed or strongly agreed, with a further 7% expressing
mixed views.
"Classroom observations have recently
multiplied because, we are told, the closer our self evaluation,
the easier the inspection. Classroom observations are done using
an Ofsted pro-forma ... Although only pre-agreed aspects of the
observations are agreed on beforehand, the form is always filled
in from top to tail by the observer—VERY INTIMIDATING."
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
101. Thirty-six per cent of respondents
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the inspection was
supportive and motivated teachers. Thirty-five per cent, however,
either agreed or strongly agreed and a further 29% had mixed views.
"Staff felt very tired after inspection
and needed morale boosting despite the fact we got an outstanding
grade."
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
"It boosted morale throughout the school
as we were a school causing concern three years ago and now classed
as a very good school—which we knew and was confirmed by
the inspection."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"After 35 years and 3 inspections, it
made me feel like handing in my notice, despite the fact that
I got very favourable assessments. Now back on Prozac and waiting
for retirement."
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
"We found the lead inspector to be autocratic,
unprofessional in his treatment of staff and, at times, unpleasant...
The school staff, who are extremely conscientious and hardworking,
felt undervalued and thoroughly demoralised post-Ofsted."
(Primary Head Teacher)
102. Over half of the respondents (60%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the judgment of inspectors
about their school was fair and accurate. Twenty-one per cent
had mixed views. Eighteen per cent either disagreed or strongly
disagreed.
"Some members of staff felt the feedback
was negative and too harsh but I felt it was actually a true reflection
of the school's strengths and areas for development."
(Secondary Deputy Head Teacher)
"We all agreed that the final report
was a fair and accurate evaluation of our school present and future."
(Primary Mainscale Teacher)
"They didn't look to celebrate our strengths!
More to expose our weaknesses!! We had to push them to acknowledge
the positives although, to be fair, they did in the final report,
but it was hard work."
(Primary Head Teacher)
103. More than half of respondents (58%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the combined experience
of the inspection team matched well with the inspection needs
of their school. Twenty-three per cent either disagreed or strongly
disagreed and a further 20% had mixed views on this issue.
"The team were well prepared, impressively
well qualified to meet the range of school population—SEN,
EAL, etc."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Our male Ofsted inspector did not seem
to have the Early Years understanding as the female inspectors
we have experienced in the past. He was too pressing with our
EAL children who did not have the confidence to answer his questions
fluently (or in English) and his conclusions were far more critical
as a result."
(Nursery Mainscale Teacher)
"The quality of the inspector was very
good. She quickly grasped the strength and value of the school
and made it an affirming experience for all."
(Special Head Teacher)
104. The majority of respondents (65%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that inspectors took proper account
of the history of their school and the make up of its pupil population
when making judgements. Nineteen per cent either disagreed or
strongly disagreed and a further 16% had mixed views.
"We had a very fair team who looked
beyond the PANDA and who recognised the value of work currently
being done in other aspects (PSHE, PE, etc). Another team might
have become `hooked up' on the PANDA and not recognised the considerable
improvement."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Our final report was accurate, but
if they had become overly obsessed with our poor results cf. to
national, as opposed to our good value-added, it could have gone
the other way."
(Primary Head Teacher)
105. Sixty-seven per cent of respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that inspectors established a
professional dialogue with teachers. A further 18% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed. Sixteen% had mixed views.
"The absolute key to the usefulness
of the process is the integrity and honesty and trust in shared
purpose between the inspector and the head teacher. We had these
things. It wasn't a comfortable experience but I valued it and
it has had a positive impact on the school."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"No/very little feedback to classroom
teachers."
(Special Head of Department)
"There was no professional dialogue.
The inspection was `done to us' not with us. Previous inspection
under the last framework was never like this."
(Special Head Teacher)
"We had a very teacher-friendly team
who treated us professionally and respectfully."
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
"Inspector constantly said there wasn't
enough time to discuss issues."
(Primary Head Teacher)
106. The majority of respondents (60%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection team was balanced
in terms of experience relevant to the curriculum in their school.
Twenty per cent had mixed views. A further 19% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed with this view.
"One of our inspections was ill-informed
about new initiatives."
(Secondary Head of Department)
"We are a primary school. Our lead inspector
came from the secondary phase. We didn't think this was appropriate."
(Primary Head Teacher)
107. Over half of respondents (53%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection team was balanced
in terms of gender and ethnic group representation. However, 32%
either disagreed or strongly disagreed. A further 15% had mixed
views.
"In a primary school where most children
and staff are members of ethnic communities, we were presented
with three white male secondary school inspectors. That's not
great is it?"
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
108. The large majority of respondents (84%)
either agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection took account
of their school's existing self-evaluation. Twelve per cent had
mixed views. Only 5% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
109. The majority of respondents (73%) either
agreed or strongly agreed that the information inspectors gathered
from pupils about the school was useful in informing the inspection
findings. Seventeen% had mixed views. A further 9% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed.
110. Forty-two per cent of respondents either
agreed or strongly agreed that there were aspects of the school
which should have received more attention from the inspectors.
Thirty-three per cent, however, either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
A further 24% had mixed views.
111. The most commonly cited aspects of
schools' provision which were cited by respondents as in need
of greater attention during the inspection were the foundation
subjects and the ethos of the school, particularly as manifested
by enrichment activities and/or community links. Aspects of leadership
and management, particularly middle management and the importance
of gaining teachers' perspectives on the school's leadership,
pastoral issues and SEN were also regularly suggested by respondents
as in need of more emphasis during the inspection.
"In a school with 40% SEN, they seemed
overly focussed with provision for Gifted and Talented at the
expense of SEN provision."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Pastoral care—wasn't much interest
in this—far more interest in results."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Management inadequacies were not fully
investigated."
(Primary Mainscale Teacher)
"Most things out of core subjects."
(Primary Mainscale Teacher)
"Pastoral care, balanced curriculum."
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
"Non-core subjects, vocational subjects,
6th form lessons."
(Secondary Head of Department)
112. More than half of respondents (52%)
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that there were aspects
of their school which received too much attention from the inspectors.
However, 28% agreed or strongly agreed and 20% had mixed views.
113. The vast majority of respondents who
believed that there were aspects which had received too much attention
from inspectors raised issues about an over-emphasis on data.
Relatively few respondents believed too much time had been spent
on the core subjects or other aspects of schools' provision:
"Inspectors made too much of PANDA/SATs
as cohorts tiny."
(Secondary Head Teacher)
"The team inspected in September and
refused to consider the SMT's results from the previous year which
would have strengthened the upward trend regarding standards."
(Secondary Assistant Head Teacher)
"The inspectors were only interested
in Level 5s."
(Primary Head Teacher)
114. The large majority of respondents (84%)
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that pre-inspection preparation
and the inspection itself had disrupted activities for pupils
outside school. Nine per cent agreed and 7% had mixed views.
Section C: Comparison of Findings from the NUT
2004 Ofsted Survey
115. A number of questions which appeared
in the 2006 survey had been used previously in a NUT survey of
members in spring 2004, which sought members' views on the proposed
new arrangements for school inspections, as well as on their experience
of the last Ofsted inspection their schools had received. The
2004 survey findings, therefore, provided a baseline with which
to assess the extent to which members' views on Ofsted inspections
had changed since the introduction of the new inspection arrangements
in September 2005.
116. Support for the reduced period of notice
of inspections has grown. In 2004, respondents were divided on
the issue, with 42% in agreement with this change and almost a
third (31%) who disagreed. In 2006, almost half of respondents
support the development (49%) and only 6% oppose it.
117. Support for the reduced cycle of inspections,
from six to three years, has increased substantially. In 2004,
only 19% supported this development, with 48% opposing it. In
2006, this situation was reversed, with 49% supporting it and
only 19% opposing it. The number of respondents with mixed views
on this issue has remained almost constant.
118. Respondents continued to support the
reduced duration of inspection visits to schools. Agreement with
this development increased by 11% to 81% in 2006. Opponents of
the reduced duration declined by 1%, to 6% in 2006.
119. The new system of limited lesson observations
for individual teachers continued to be supported by respondents.
Eighty-three per cent now support this development, compared to
70% in 2004. The proportion of respondents who held mixed views
or opposed this initiative both decreased, by 8% and 5% respectively.
120. Ofsted's focus on the core subjects
only during school inspections is far less popular with respondents
now than when it was first proposed. The proportion of respondents
supporting this development has reduced by half, from 47% in 2004
to 23% in 2006. Many more respondents now have mixed views about
this (44%, compared to 25% in 2004).
121. The introduction of the Ofsted School
Self-Evaluation Form (SEF) has also been problematic according
to respondents. Whilst there is still a high level of support
for it (74%), this is a reduction of 10% compared to 2004. More
respondents now have mixed views about it (21% compared to 13%
in 2004).
122. Interestingly, however, more respondents
now believe that their school's existing self evaluation work
is taken into account by inspectors, an increase of 29% compared
to 2004. Five per cent disagreed in 2006, compared to 16% in 2004,
with a further 12% holding mixed views on the issue (compared
to 27% in 2004).
123. The new arrangements do appear to have
reduced to some extent the amount of additional work generated
by inspection. Whilst over half of respondents (52%) reported
that preparation for the inspection had created significant additional
workload in 2006, this was a considerable reduction compared to
2004, when 94% said that their workload had increased as a result
of inspection preparation. Only 2% of respondents reported that
no additional work had been created; compared to 30% in 2006.
124. There is also a notable shift in perception
about the extent to which inspections are viewed as supportive
and motivating for teachers. Thirty-five per cent of respondents
now think that they are, compared to just 17% in 2004. Similarly,
36% of respondents disagreed, a considerable reduction from the
59% who held this view in 2004.
125. In addition, respondents' opinions
on the validity of inspection judgements have also improved. Over
half (60%) now think that judgements are fair and accurate, compared
to 38% in 2004. The proportion of respondents who do not hold
this view declined from 28% to 18% in 2006.
126. This may be linked to the findings
that more than half of respondents (58%) now believe the experience
of the inspection team is well matched to their school, compared
to less than a third (31%) in 2004. Twenty-three perecent of respondents
in 2006 were critical of their inspection team, compared to 34%
in 2004. In addition, there was an increase of 17% of respondents
who believed that the inspectors had established a professional
dialogue with teachers (67% in 2006), with an accompanying decrease
in the proportion of respondents who held mixed views on this
issue (16% compared to 27% in 2004).
127. Similarly, the proportion of respondents
who believed the inspection team was balanced in terms of experience
relevant to the curriculum increased by 15% to 60% in 2006, with
those who held mixed views (20%) or disagreeing (19%) declining
correspondingly by 8% and 6% respectively compared to 2004.
128. Respondents also appeared slightly
more confident that the inspection covered the right things in
the right proportion. Thirty-three per cent felt that the coverage
was accurate, compared to 25% in 2004. A significant proportion,
however, still believed there were aspects of the school which
should have received more attention (42% compared to 51% in 2004).
In addition, 28% of respondents felt there were aspects of the
school which received too much attention from inspectors, compared
to 44% in 2004, with a further 52% disagreeing with this view,
compared to 27% in 2004).
129. There has been a significant growth
in support for the use of information gathered from pupils to
inform inspection findings. Almost three quarters of respondents
(73%) now support this aspect of inspection, compared to 45% in
2004. Opposition to the use of such information has decreased
by half, from 18% to 9% in 2006.
130. There also seems to be growing support
for the view that Ofsted inspections help schools improve. Forty-four
per cent of respondents in 2006 expressed this opinion, compared
to 12% in 2004. Fifty-seven per cent disagreed with this view
in 2004, compared to 26% in 2006.
131. It was also felt that Ofsted inspections
were increasingly accurate in terms of assessing the value added
by the school, with 47% of respondents expressing this view, compared
to 29% in 2004. Twenty-six per cent, however, disagreed, compared
to 38% in 2004.
132. Respondents also believed increasingly
that inspection provided an accurate judgement of the school's
management of resources (62% compared to 36% in 2004).
133. Exactly the same proportion of respondents
from each survey (59%) disagreed with the statement that the Ofsted
inspection system stimulated help and support from external sources.
There was a ten% increase, however, in respondents who believed
this to be the case (21% in 2006).
134. When comparing their experiences of
inspection under the "old" and "new" frameworks,
71% of respondents stated that pre-inspection preparation had
been reduced, compared to 38% who believed that it would in 2004.
It was felt that the new arrangements were an improvement to the
previous system (75% compared to 37% who believed it would be).
This did not necessarily, however, lead to a more accurate picture
of schools according to respondents in 2006. Thirty-seven per
cent had mixed views and 26% disagreed with this statement, compared
to 28% and 36% respectively in 2004. The proportion of respondents
who believed the new arrangements had led to more accuracy remained
almost constant (37% compared to 35% in 2004).
Section D: Discussion
135. The findings of this survey would appear
to indicate that the new system of Ofsted inspection has been
welcomed by teachers and head teachers. There are high levels
of support for aspects such as the short notice of inspection;
the reduction of time spent in schools by inspectors; the limited
amount of lesson observation undertaken by inspectors; and the
greater focus on the school's leadership and management. Three
quarters of respondents believed that the 2005 inspection framework
represented an improvement from the previous arrangements.
136. This was reflected in a number of findings
relating to respondents' direct experience of inspection and to
the judgements made on their schools. Over two-thirds of respondents
reported that they had not been asked to do any additional work
for the inspection and that they had established a professional
dialogue with inspectors during the visit. Just under two thirds
of respondents believed that the inspectors' judgements on their
school were fair and accurate and took proper account of their
school's history and intake.
137. The survey did highlight, however,
a number of key areas of the new inspection framework where respondents'
opinions were divided. Significant misgivings were expressed about
the focus on the core subjects only, the separate system of subject
inspections and the fact that some teachers were not observed
at all during the inspection. Many respondents also felt that
there were aspects of their school which had received too much
or too little attention.
138. In addition, a number of written comments
suggested dissatisfaction with the small size of inspection teams,
in particular, the ability of a single inspector to provide a
fair and accurate judgement on a school.
"As a very small school, we had only
one inspector for one day and whilst I was grateful for that in
one respect, it could lead to a lack of balance in views/judgement.
Also, the size of a school does not necessarily reflect the breadth
and extent of its practice—so we felt the inspector hadn't
really got the time to get a flavour of all we do."
(PRU Head Teacher)
"As head of a small school, we only
had one inspector. She came with what appeared to be a personal
agenda and there was no-one to debate and discuss opinions with."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"My very small school had one inspector
for one day whose own background was predominantly secondary.
We did not feel judgements could be termed as corporate ... I
also found the complaints procedure unsatisfactory as my concerns
were put to my inspector and I received the same response as when
I raised the issues in my feedback meeting. There is no group
discussion possible if only one inspector is on site, no second
view."
(Primary Head Teacher)
139. Even more crucially, respondents still
expressed serious concerns about the workload and pressure caused
by inspection, which the new framework was designed to tackle.
Although the per centages of respondents who expressed such views
under the previous system had diminished, respondents still reported
unacceptably high levels of pre-inspection stress. The inspection
had created additional workload for them, therefore, respondents
did not feel that the burden on schools caused by inspections
had reduced sufficiently. Whilst Ofsted inspections continue to
have such "high stakes" for schools, this perception
is unlikely to change.
140. Similarly, respondents remain dissatisfied
with the separation of the inspection regime from support for
school improvement. The majority of respondents still believe
that inspections do not stimulate help or support from external
sources or help their individual school to improve. There was,
therefore, considerable disagreement with the view expressed by
Ofsted that the new arrangements would stimulate more rapid improvements.
141. Whilst the findings of this survey
certainly indicate that the new inspections arrangements represent
a welcome improvement on previous Ofsted frameworks, respondents
indicated that there is still room for improvement.
142. Some respondents' comments related
to the over-emphasis on data to the detriment of other aspects
of schools' provision:
"Our team was fair and we found the
experience positive but it was clear that they were completely
hidebound by the Government's requirements. The ECM agenda doesn't
count—results do! It is politically expedient but when it
counts, only attendance and results are important to Ofsted. The
inner child is NOT!!"
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Very concerned by such powerful and
potentially destroying judgements being made on such questionable
data."
(Primary Head Teacher)
143. Other respondents identified specific
aspects of the 2005 Inspection Framework which they believed were
in need of improvement.
"The four point grading is crude ...
With four points it does not allow for a true reflection of the
school's performance. There is a need for a `very good' grade
between `good' and `outstanding'. In analysis of other Ofsted
reports, there is a huge difference in the written commentary
on the sub-sections although schools receive the same grade."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"I believe an issue is that the new
approach only examines what is the case in the majority of schools
and, therefore, cannot respond sensitively enough to local changes—in
our case a recent amalgamation and `live site' building programme.
Staff efforts in these areas are huge and somewhere this and the
ability to numerise the impact on pupils, should be recognised."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"At the end of a very long day, it is
difficult to be on the ball in challenging judgements, etc. Some
comments were changed but only after a vigorous process with Ofsted."
(Primary Head Teacher)
144. The written comments highlighted a
wide range of issues for special school inspections. Multi-level
analysis revealed that special school respondents were more likely
to be less supportive of the new inspection and of the quality
of the inspection team arrangements than any other group.
"I feel that some of the new format
for inspection is less sensitive to the needs of a special school
... special schools with SLD pupils only seem to manage a 4 for
pupil progress because the benchmark with mainstream is wholly
wrong."
(Special Head Teacher)
"The sole inspector had no experience
as a teacher in a special school and no professional experience
of ASD (we are an ASD specific school). He was, therefore, unable
to make informed judgements with regard to this school's population."
(Special Head Teacher)
"The trend towards inspectors with no
special school experience is not positive. Our inspector lacked
the knowledge and understanding to make judgements about the quality
of learning and teaching ... He did an efficient job in confirming
the SEF but no more."
(Special Head Teacher)
"The criteria for success/achievement,
etc., of pupils in a PRU needs to be altered. We are significantly
different to a school and should be assessed accordingly—not
on the same criteria as a mainstream school."
(PRU Head Teacher)
"(Pupil letter) needs to take account
of special school audience, eg, writing and symbols."
(Special Head Teacher)
145. Amongst respondents from all phases,
the perception that the quality of inspection teams was inconsistent
and that schools were "lucky" or "unlucky"
in the allocation of inspectors to their school has persisted,
indicating that little progress has been made in improving quality
assurance to ensure consistency of inspectors' approaches or behaviour
during an inspection inset:
"This was my fourth Ofsted inspection
and I have also done my training as an Ofsted inspector but I
still feel that the process is very subjective, depends a lot
on the team you get, the agenda they come with and then the ability
of the head teacher to establish a good relationship with them
and `play a game' confidently."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"A good team with a strong knowledge
of the work of a primary school ... but I know this is not always
the case from other colleagues."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"We (the management team) found the
last experience to be quite a negative episode in the life of
the school, despite being regarded/judged as good/outstanding!
It is very clear to me that the quality of teams is just as variable
as before and that not all schools get the same `quality control'.
I was pleased to have a second inspection (Section 48 Church School)
two months after the Ofsted—it restored my faith in the
conduct/attitude of inspectors. Decided not to complain to Ofsted—after
all, who wants them back again!"
(Secondary Head Teacher)
"We were desperately unlucky in our
team during the inspection."
(Primary Head Teacher)
146. A number of respondents used the space
provided at the end of the questionnaire as an opportunity to
suggest what they believed would be improvements to the current
mechanisms for school accountability.
"Better than before, but still am not
convinced it's the `best' way to get a true picture of a school."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Happily, we received a very positive
report—outstanding in all areas. However, I still feel that
it is a drain on national education resources and that if the
local authority gains a positive report, our link advisors, with
increased powers, should be able to challenge and help develop
schools."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"Stop all Ofsted inspections and move
to a complete self evaluation programme with local LEA inspectors.
Use Ofsted as a sampling body only or where there are significant
school failures."
(Secondary Head of Department)
"Our school was validated and you would
think I would support the process. Morally, I object, the model
is still low trust and punitive and a lost opportunity for genuine
dialogue and professional development which all the professional
colleagues I have crave."
(Primary Head Teacher)
"The key focus this seems to concentrate
on is the end of key stage results through tests. The testing
arrangements and VA/CVA are greatly flawed. Teacher assessments
are still not valued as highly as test results ... why isn't the
money from inspections and test papers, marking used to employ
moderators instead to moderate results, not `inspect them', on
a rolling programme?"
(Primary Head Teacher)
Section E: The Spread of the Sample
147. Seventy-one per cent of respondents
were female, 29% male.
148. The majority of respondents were over
41 years of age (36% aged 41-50, 51% over 51 years of age).
149. Sixty-two per cent of respondents worked
in primary schools and 16% in secondary schools. 12% worked in
special schools, 5% in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), 3% in other
schools and 2% at nursery level.
150. Forty-seven per cent of respondents
were head teachers and 12% Subject Co-ordinators. Nine per cent
worked as deputy head teachers and 9% indicated that they were
Head of Department/Key Stage. Nine per cent were other members
of the Leadership Group and 9% worked as mainscale teachers. Three
per cent were assistant head teachers and 1% worked in other positions.
151. Sixty-three per cent had been teaching
for over 20 years. Fifteen per cent had taught for between 16-20
years, 10% between 11-15 years. Nine per cent have been teaching
for between six and 10 years and 3% between one and five years.
152. Respondents to this survey, therefore,
clearly supported the view that it is the structural nature of
the inspection system which is now in urgent need of reform. Until
inspections are de-coupled from their potentially punitive consequences
and given a more developmental and supportive function, they will
continue to drive up pressure and stress in schools.
| 
