Memorandum submitted by John Chidgey,
Honorary President, The National Association of Advisers and Inspectors
in Design and Technology (NAAIDT)
INTRODUCTION TO
SUBMITTER
I am Durham Local Authority's Inspector for
Design and Technology with an additional responsibility for the
educational input into the Building Schools for the Future Programme.
I am also an Ofsted Inspector for the Primary and Secondary phases.
Prior to this I was a Head of Department/Faculty and then advisory
teacher for Design and Technology. In 2006 I became President
of the National Association of Advisers and Inspectors in Design
and Technology.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Since the introduction of the new inspection
procedures, where the emphasis is on general aspects and core
subjects, there has been a significant reduction in information
from Ofsted pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses of the foundation
subject, Design and Technology.
2. This situation is exacerbated by the
proportionate inspection system. Early indications are that schools
can feel "short changed" by an inspection carried out
by one person in one day. Key areas can be missed and the expertise
of the inspector called into question when complex issues have
to be analysed in a very short time. Superficial judgements may
be made and given great weight by the school, sometimes in contrast
to the views of subject specialists or others who have close contact
with a school or subject department, including the School Improvement
Partner (SIP).
3. Because of the focus on the key skills
of literacy and numeracy the important foundation subjects including
Design and Technology receive little if any scrutiny during a
typical Ofsted inspection. Unless the school has highlighted Design
and Technology as an area of weakness in their own self evaluation,
the Ofsted team will not pursue a rigorous evaluation of standards
in the subject.
4. The annual report from HMCI is focused
on general issues and includes relatively little comment on foundation
subjects, a strong component of any broad and balanced curriculum.
5. The reduced subject inspection programme
for Design and Technology is restricted to 60 schools a year.
(The sample consists of thirty Secondary and thirty Primary schools—approximately
0.003% of schools nationally). This is an extremely small sample
and unlikely to provide valid and reliable information, even when
combined in the triennial subject report.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
1. Ofsted should review the current arrangements
for inspecting schools so that foundation subjects including Design
and Technology receive greater attention. This could be achieved
through identifying annually themes and subjects for all inspections.
The outcomes of such focused activity could assist subject Associations
including NAAIDT by providing details of what is working well
in schools and why. The seeking out, publicising and sharing of
good practice would be a productive process enabling improvements
in the subject to be monitored and shared.
2. There should be enhanced training for
inspectors making judgements on Design and Technology in schools.
NAAIDT took the lead in training subject inspectors as we were
concerned about the quality of judgements made under the old system.
With the emphasis on self -evaluation it is even more important
that schools have good advice to assist them in making accurate
judgements on the quality of Design and Technology.
3. The impact of the new arrangements for
proportionate inspection should be carefully evaluated to ensure
that judgements made by Ofsted are valid and that the report does
not duplicate the annual report made by the SlP.
December 2006
| 
