Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Head Teachers (NAHT)
The National Association of Headteachers (NAHT)
has c29,000 active members, headteachers, deputies and assistant
headteachers in schools educating young people aged 3-19, in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland ... The majority of special school
leaders are members of NAHT, along with over 90% of primary and
50% of secondary school leaders.
NAHT welcomed the underlying principle of the
revised inspection arrangements, that it should be based on the
school's own evaluation of its effectiveness. The Association
has long argued for an inspection process, driven by the school's
own judgements. Since September 2005, many members have reported
highly successful section 5 inspections, and it is clear that
in many schools the new arrangements have worked well and been
positive and beneficial to the school.
However, in a significant minority of schools,
the arrangements have been unsatisfactory, and we outline below
concerns that have been reported to the Association by members.
1. USE OF
DATA IN
SCHOOL INSPECTIONS
Inspectors have access to a range of data on
school performance, including Contextualised Value Added, Fischer
Family Trust, and key stage test and GCSE results. This data gives
a strong indication of the strength of the school, but it is only
an indication. NAHT supports the guidance to inspectors from Ofsted,
that such data should inform but not determine inspection judgements.
However, we continue to receive reports from members of inspectors
who appear to have made up their mind about the school, and reached
the inspection judgements, before they come into the school. This
particularly affects schools in challenging circumstances, whose
test results are below national averages; it is too easy to infer
from the data that the school is underperforming. Members report
that, where the inspector has come to that conclusion before coming
into school, it can be very difficult to persuade them to look
at other evidence available in the school, such as pupil tracking
records, which might show the progress being made by pupils. Such
professional discussion may well give greater understanding of
factors linked to apparent under-performance. In a school improvement
context, the best use of data is to stimulate questions and discussion,
rather than to make judgements.
2. THE WIDER
SCHOOL CURRICULUM
Schools are encouraged to innovate, to look
at different approaches to learning and to the curriculum. The
Primary Strategy Document, "Excellence and Enjoyment"
highlighted the benefits of a broad primary curriculum, while
the Primary Review launched recently has as one of its themes
"Curriculum and Assessment". This will consider,
inter alia, the elements of a "meaningful, balanced and
relevant" primary curriculum. However, the inspection process
only focuses on the core subjects, essentially on outcomes in
literacy and numeracy, and takes little account of whatever else
is happening in the school. NAHT is not arguing for detailed inspection
of all that is taught within the school, but wants the inspection
system to take greater account of the wider provision offered
by the school
3. HIGH STAKES
NATURE OF
INSPECTION
Inspection outcomes are extremely important
to a school, and to its leadership. A special measures judgement,
not uncommonly, means a change of headteacher, while other members
of the leadership team may well find that this blights their future
career. Heads in schools in challenging circumstances feel particularly
vulnerable in inspection—we noted above the impact which
data-led judgements can have on the inspection of a school whose
results are below the national average. In this context, if a
school feels it is likely to be inspected soon, it is reluctant
to introduce changes or innovations which may affect the end of
key stage results, irrespective of any other benefits such innovation
might bring for the children's learning.
The current inspection system puts greater pressure
on school leaders than on classroom teachers. Indeed, in large
schools, it is possible for some classroom teachers not to come
into contact with an inspector at all. However, for school leaders
the move to short notice inspections has increased rather than
reduced the pressure. There is less time for discussion with the
inspectors, and to provide additional evidence if it is needed.
Schools in challenging circumstances are conscious that if the
inspection does not fully take account of their circumstances
and achievements, and as a result they are placed in a category,
the professional implications can be severe. In addition, such
a judgement will affect the reputation of the school locally,
with implications for admissions and funding. Contact with members
indicates that this is a major factor in the reluctance of teachers
to become heads, and is contributing to the difficulties many
schools face when they advertise for a headteacher.
When inspection goes awry, schools are reluctant
to use the formal Complaint Procedure. Since September 2005, it
has been possible to complain about the outcome of an inspection,
as well as about the conduct of inspectors. NAHT has urged members
to use this procedure if appropriate. However, three factors contribute
to reluctance to follow this course. The first is a desire simply
to put a difficult and distressing experience behind them, the
second is that they have no confidence that the inspection judgements
will be changed as a result. The third worry is that, if the school
complains, the inspectors will come back and repeat the inspection,
and members say to us that they are not prepared to put their
staff through it again. True or not, the concern is there, and
illustrates the way in which Ofsted is viewed in many schools.
4. POST INSPECTION
LETTERS TO
PUPILS
The principle behind the letters is to ensure
that pupils are informed about the inspection outcomes. This can
be achieved effectively by means of a School Council where this
exists, or by discussion of the findings in assembly, class or
tutor group discussions. However, a number of members have reported
instances to us of difficulties caused by the wording of the letter.
Wording appropriate for older children in a school may well be
inappropriate for younger pupils, and vice versa. Sometimes the
wording has not helped the leadership team in working with staff.
We look forward to seeing further advice from Ofsted in this area.
5. CULTURE OF
THE INSPECTION
SYSTEM
Despite revisions to the inspection system,
many members remain concerned at the culture of the system, seeing
it as a process which focuses on identifying perceived failure,
of "naming and shaming" when things go awry. NAHT does
not contemplate endorsing complacency, but does argue for a move
to a more constructive form of inspection. Inspection should be
rigorous, but should also be a professional process that seeks
to identify, support, and, where necessary, defend, schools in
challenging circumstances.
December 2006
|
