Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of 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

Annex

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 questionnaire used is attached as Annex A.

  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 LEA. 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)

  78.  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)

  79.  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)

  80.  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)

  81.  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

  82.  Seventy-one per cent of respondents were female, 29% male.

  83.  The majority of respondents were over 41 years of age (36% aged 41-50, 51% over 51 years of age).

  84.  Sixty-two per cent of respondents worked in primary schools and 16% in secondary schools. Twelve% worked in special schools, 5% in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), 3% in other schools and 2% at nursery level.

  85.  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.

  86.  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.

  87.  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.

---

---

---

Prepared 4 June 2007