Memorandum submitted by The National Association
of Headteachers (NAHT)
The National Association of Headteachers (NAHT)
is pleased to make this submission to the Select Committee to
inform its discussion with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.
NAHT is the professional association for school leaders in schools
educating children aged 3-19, across England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. The submission is informed by responses to inspections
from members across England.
The issues the Association feels it would be
useful for the Committee to discuss with the Chief Inspector are:
— Research carried out by University
of Central Lancashire for NAHT;
— Data-led inspection judgements;
— Inspection as a factor in the shortage
of applicants for headship;
— Notice periods and timescales of
inspection;
— Issues relating to the Foundation
Stage from September 2008; and
— The Ofsted position on the use of
gradings in classroom observation.
We give below more details of the concerns of
members in each area.
1. RESEARCH CARRIED
OUT BY
UNIVERSITY OF
CENTRAL LANCASHIRE
FOR NAHT
1.1 NAHT recently commissioned the University
of Central Lancashire to research members' views on their school
inspections. A copy of the initial report is attached.[12]
It suggests that radical changes are required to the inspection
system if we are to develop a professional system which trusts,
and is trusted by, school leaders.
1.2 The research indicates that 89% of respondents
in England agree with the view that the influence of data on inspection
judgements is "too strong", a point expanded below.
This is despite guidance to inspectors that CVA data should inform,
but not determine, inspection judgements. Research reported by
Warwick Mansell in a recent edition of TES indicated that 98%
of overall judgements are the same as the gradings for "achievement
and standards", based on CVA data (i).
1.3 We discuss the impact of inspection
on the recruitment of headteachers in section 3 below. The research
indicates that 50.4% of respondents in England felt that the impact
of Ofsted contributed significantly to headteacher recruitment
difficulties. Of those deputy heads who responded, 63.5% said
they were less likely to apply for headship.
1.4 The survey also shows continuing concerns
about the quality of inspection teams. Therefore, NAHT proposes
that the current contract-based system is disbanded, and a professional
cadre of HMI is set up on a regional basis, to work alongside
the DCSF regional structure. This would not only help to provide
quality assurance, but would also establish links between DCSF
and the inspection service that do not currently exist.
2. DATA-LED
INSPECTION JUDGEMENTS
2.1 Section 5 inspections are very different
from what went before. They focus more directly on the school's
results, in the form of end of Key Stage testing or GCSE or other
examinations. NAHT continues to receive calls from members following
an inspection, concerned that the judgements appear to have been
reached solely on the basis of these out-turn results. Even if
Key Stage 2 results are below average, the school may have been
successful in raising pupils' attainment from low entry levels.
Inspection should take account of the progress made by pupils,
rather than simply their scores at Key Stage 2. In a successful
inspection, this will happen.
2.2 However, if the inspector makes the
judgement simply on the basis of CVA and RAISEonline data, without
taking account of additional evidence the school has on pupil
progress, the inspection judgement may be more negative than it
should be. School leaders are told by the lead inspector that,
if standards are "satisfactory", they cannot judge Leadership
and Management as "good", ignoring the possibility that
it may be largely because of good (or outstanding) Leadership
and Management that the children's achievements have reached "satisfactory".
This creates a "weakest link" criterion, whereby a school
can only be seen as being as good as the worst aspect of its performance.
This is a deeply flawed ideology. In some cases a focus on data
to the exclusion of other factors can mean a school going into
a category, with serious implications for school leaders.
2.3 Ofsted guidance to inspectors (ii) is
that "the overall judgements must reflect all the evidence
considered by the inspection team" (paragraph 39) and that
where school leaders disagree with a judgement they "should
be given the opportunity of presenting further evidence"
(paragraph 32). Nevertheless, the Association continues to hear
of inspectors who do not follow this requirement, and where it
appears to the school leadership that the judgement has been reached
on the basis of data only. Members are advised to make a formal
complaint to Ofsted in these circumstances, but experience, supported
by the UCL/NAHT research, shows that colleagues in these circumstances
often want to put an unpleasant experience behind them. In any
case, even a successful complaint does not normally address the
specific issue of an inaccurate and misleading inspection outcome.
3. INSPECTION
AS A
FACTOR IN
THE SHORTAGE
OF APPLICANTS
FOR HEADSHIP
3.1 There are two aspects to this issue.
The first follows from the points made above. A potential head
or deputy in a school in challenging circumstances may be stimulated
by the challenge of working in such a school. However, if there
is a feeling that a data-driven inspection may not recognise the
achievements of the school, or may lead to the school being placed
in a category, good candidates may well be reluctant to apply,
a finding identified by the UCL/NAHT research noted above.
3.2 The second point relates to the inspection
process itself. Reports from members are that, even when the inspection
outcomes are good, the process is so demanding on senior staff
that they do not want to go through the process again. Deputy
and assistant heads in these schools are saying that the inspection
process is so onerous on heads as to dissuade them from applying
for headship.
4. NOTICE PERIODS
AND TIMESCALES
OF INSPECTION
4.1 The notice period for a section 5 inspection
is normally two to three days. The justification for this short
notice period was to prevent schools undergoing extensive preparation
for their inspection. The expectation is that before contacting
the school, the inspectors will consult the school's self-evaluation
form (SEF) and CVA data, then have an extended telephone conversation
with the headteacher about relevant issues, before drawing up
the Pre-Inspection Briefing (PIB). Experience suggests that this
is often a rushed process—it is fine if all goes well, but
there is no lee-way if there is a delay in the inspector accessing
the SEF, transfer of the PIB, or similar problems.
4.2 The reduced notice period has created
a specific problem for the headteacher in some schools. As well
as their responsibilities within their own school, experienced
heads take on additional system-management roles. They may work
with colleague heads as a School Improvement Partner, provide
support for the leadership of a neighbouring school, work on behalf
of the National College for School Leadership or similar. Heads
also accompany groups of students on residential educational visits
in school time. Currently, there is no provision for a section
5 inspection to be deferred on the basis of the head's planned
absence from school for educational reasons, or if the head is
on short-term sick leave.
4.3 The nature of section 5 inspection requires
in-depth discussion between the headteacher and the Lead Inspector,
to look closely at the SEF, pupil tracking and evidence of progress
the school wishes to put to the inspectors. NAHT has argued since
the introduction of section 5 inspections for the system to allow
the inspection to be deferred if the head is due to be out of
school on educational business, or is on short-term sick leave.
The current Protocol used by Ofsted for deciding on a deferral
specifically excludes the absence of the headteacher as a criterion,
a provision NAHT would like changed.
4.4 An issue that arose in 2007, and which
is made more complex by the reduced notice period, is the inspection
of a school with Key Stage Two pupils during the designated SAT
week. Previously there had been an understanding that this would
be avoided, but in 2007 several schools were called for inspection
in the same week as pupils were undertaking SATs. The pupils'
routines within that week are already disrupted, and it is likely
that the headteacher will be involved in arrangements for the
SATs. Given the high-stakes nature of both the inspection and
the SAT results, it is not reasonable for the two events to be
held in the same week. The Committee might want to explore Ofsted's
justification for this inflexibility.
4.5 Both the above issues would be addressed
by the adoption of the NAHT's suggestion that the date for a school's
next inspection would be agreed immediately following the current
visit. The time-scale would be determined by the inspection team
and the school. A school requiring further support might have
a shorter period between inspections than others. Once the approximate
date for the next inspection has been decided, the actual date
could be agreed with the school closer to the date, so as to avoid
the issues identified in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4 above. The NAHT
has in the past argued that two weeks should be the standard notice
period for an inspection visit. This would allow the school to
consider the PIB thoroughly, assemble evidence and liaise with
the Lead Inspector.
4.6 Inspectors are only in school for one
or two days. This time is largely spent considering documentary
evidence, with only brief visits to classrooms, where the real
business of the school is going on. This means that, if additional
discussions are required (perhaps to ensure the inspectors have
a full understanding of school evidence, or to share examples
of good teaching & learning) there is not time to do this
within the timescale of the inspection. NAHT has in the past recommended
that an additional day be made available for an inspection, a
day that would only be used if it was needed to ensure all evidence
could be taken into account.
5. ISSUES RELATING
TO THE
FOUNDATION STAGE
FROM SEPTEMBER
2008
5.1 The Early Years Foundation Stage becomes
statutory on 1 September 2008. Schools and Local Authorities are
currently considering how to implement its requirements. A major
issue facing many schools is the requirement for a qualified teacher
in a maintained nursery school or a nursery class in a maintained
primary school. NAHT supports the promotion of high standards
of teaching and learning in this phase, and the aim of having
young children taught by qualified teachers. However, members
have reported in recent years that it has been very difficult
to appoint a qualified teacher for a nursery class. Consequently,
a range of highly successful practice has developed across the
country. The Association has been exploring with DCSF and the
General Teaching Council for England how to address this requirement
from September. Members have received differing impressions from
LAs of the attitude Ofsted is likely to take when it inspects
a school after 1 September.
5.2 The Association is aware of a letter
issued recently by the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh
Local Government Association (iii). This letter clarifies that
implementation of the Foundation Stage in Wales is to be staged
over 3-4 years. In terms of staffing, the letter makes clear the
understanding that the relevant staffing ratios will be achieved
by the end of the four year funding cycle. It also says that "Estyn
inspections will take account of the phased nature of implementation",
accepting that the full staffing ratios will not be achieved until
2011. Is Ofsted likely to take a similar view of the implementation
arrangements, or will a school inspected in, say, October 2008
be expected to have reached the prescribed staffing levels by
then?
5.3 A further question arises in relation
to the training of inspectors in preparation for inspections from
September. Is the Chief Inspector confident that Ofsted will have
enough inspectors in place, suitably prepared, in the right parts
of the country, to carry out inspections under the new arrangements?
In the current system, members have reported concerns that some
inspectors seem not to be aware of the different weightings ascribed
to various Foundation Stage outcomes, and to be using these inappropriately
as indicators of future performance. Will all inspectors be properly
trained for the new arrangements?
5.4 Currently, a school that is designated
a Children's Centre has to complete two SEFs. The SEF in respect
of its role as a Children's Centre reflects discussions around
the core offer of early years provision. This in itself is time-consuming,
but only forms part of the further SEF completed in respect of
the role as a nursery school. Could these requirements be brought
together, and made less demanding, with the introduction of the
Early Years Foundation Stage?
5.5 When several agencies are involved in
provision within one centre, there needs to be clarity in respect
of the responsibility for specific activities which are being
inspected. How well prepared are inspectors for assessing relevant
responsibilities?
6. THE OFSTED
POSITION ON
THE USE
OF GRADINGS
IN CLASSROOM
OBSERVATION
6.1 Ofsted judgements on aspects of a school,
and the overall judgement on its effectiveness, are graded on
a scale of 1-4. At the time of an inspection, the headteacher
will be expected to have a clear understanding of the standards
of teaching and learning within the school, and be able to cite
evidence for these judgements. Ofsted has said that it does not
set out how schools reach such a judgement, nor does it require
headteachers to grade lessons observed on the 1-4 scale. NAHT
agrees that this is the Ofsted position. However, there are those
who have inferred from this that schools are not allowed to use
such gradings. This has led to conflicts in schools, with members
of some teacher unions challenging the use by school leaders of
these grades in lesson observation. This use is legitimate under
Ofsted arrangements; NAHT would also argue that to use the gradings
in observations is effective use of time—if they were not
used in this way, senior staff would have to find other ways of
evaluating the quality of teaching and learning, risking adding
to the burden on teachers and school leaders alike.
6.2 The Association would find it extremely
useful if the Chief Inspector were to take the opportunity of
this session to confirm that the use of Ofsted gradings and grade
descriptions in classroom observation is legitimate, that the
decision on their use in classroom observations rests with the
school, and that Ofsted has not issued any advice or direction
to the effect that they may not be so used.
REFERENCES:
(i) A Touch Too Light, Ofsted—TES,
22 February 2008.
(ii) Framework for the Inspection of Schools,
September 2007 edition.
(iii) Foundation Phase Grant Allocations,
letter dated 19 March 2008.
April 2008
12 Not printed. Back
| 
