Memorandum submitted by the National Union
of Teachers (NUT)
COMMENTARY
A key theme of the Commentary to HMCI's Annual
Report is the ability of Ofsted to "promote improvement in
the public services we inspect or regulate" (page 5), although
it later goes on to say "Ofsted itself does not bring about
improvement although it acts as a catalyst for improvement"
(page 9).
— Which sections of the Annual Report
does HMCI believe best illustrate the beneficial effects of inspection?
— Would HMCI explain how Ofsted measures
the impact it has on the services it inspects and regulates and
how it separates this from other factors which may promote improvement?
— Would HMCI agree that it would be
useful to include a dedicated section on the impact of Ofsted's
work in future Annual Reports?
HMCI notes that one of the most important challenges
which has yet to be met by the education system is narrowing "the
gap in opportunities and outcomes between the majority of children
and young people and those who continue to lag behind" (page
6).
— To what extent does HMCI believe
that aspects of current Government education policy such as "choice
and diversity" of schools and competition between schools,
stimulated by school performance tables, has exacerbated this
situation?
— Would HMCI agree that school-funding
mechanisms should be re-aligned to give greater support to schools
which educate children and young people from the most deprived
backgrounds?
HMCI commends the recommendations of the Rose
Review of reading and says that, if they "were followed,
substantial improvements could be made in standards of literacy"
(page 7).
— Does HMCI think it is appropriate
to comment on the detailed organisation of teaching and learning
in the Commentary?
— Will the Ofsted inspection framework
be amended as a consequence of this comment, so that schools will
be expected to follow a single recommended model, rather than
"what works"?
— How does this view sit with the non-statutory
status of the National Primary Strategy, of which the Rose recommendations
form one part?
HMCI refers to the findings of a survey conducted
by the NUT which indicated that the new system of inspection had
been welcomed by teachers and head teachers (page 9). She also
refers to one of the concerns raised by respondents to the survey,
the quality of individual inspectors and inspection teams. Given
the emphasis placed on the inspectors' evidence and speed of publication,
the complaints procedures provide too little too late. The small
size of some inspection teams and short nature of the inspections
can add to the problems resulting in collusion rather than challenge
between inspectors.
Respondents did, however, express serious reservations
about some aspects of the new inspection system, such as the separate
subject inspections and the reduced classroom observation of teachers.
In addition, there was unanimous support for the decoupling of
inspection from its high stakes consequences and the need for
inspection to be more closely aligned to school improvement work.
— Would HMCI expand on how she intends
to improve the quality of inspections and of individual inspectors?
— Does HMCI agree that there is a lack
of safeguards for teachers being interviewed by Ofsted inspectors?
— Would HMCI agree that the high stakes
consequences of inspections are the root cause of the stress and
workload which continue to be reported by teachers and head teachers
who experience an Ofsted inspection?
— Does HMCI believe that the robustness
and impact of school inspections would be reduced if they were
to play a lesser role in school accountability?
CHILDCARE AND
EARLY EDUCATION
Paragraph nine records a reduction in the number
of registered providers and notes "this slight fall tends
to mask a relatively volatile sector", with a "high
turnover of providers".
— Does HMCI believe that these figures
indicate an increase in unregistered provision? What steps are
taken to ensure that providers who deregister do not continue
to operate?
— To what does HMCI attribute this
volatility in the sector—the expansion of free nursery places
for three and four year olds; the increased quality demands on
providers; or some other factor(s)?
The Annual Report says "Ofsted judges early
years provision against four of the five Every Child Matters outcomes"
(paragraph 15)
— Why does Ofsted not inspect the fifth
outcome, economic well-being, as it does for schools?
— Would HMCI agree that the decision
to only inspect four outcomes is a result of the variability of
quality of staffing and overall provision in the sector?
The Annual Report exemplifies good settings
as places where children enjoy "outdoor play in all weathers"
(paragraph 18). Conversely, adequate settings "fail to provide
such things as... enough opportunities for children to develop
through physical play" (paragraph 20).
— Does HMCI believe that inspectors
can judge a setting to offer "good" quality provision
if children do not have all-day access to an outdoor area?
— Would HMCI agree that the welfare
requirements in the Early Years Foundation Stage, which is due
to be introduced in September 2008, should be strengthened to
require all providers to offer outdoor play facilities?
Figure 1 and 4 of the Annual Report covers the
quality of childcare and effectiveness of provision respectively.
These are offered by a wide range of providers, yet there is little
indication in the Report of which type of provider offers the
highest overall levels of quality.
— Would HMCI agree that it would be
useful in future to include a breakdown, by type of provision,
for performance against the Every Child Matters outcomes as well
as for childcare?
— How do these findings relate to those
reported in paragraph 43, that "most (maintained) nursery
schools inspected are good or outstanding and none are inadequate"?
What factors can HMCI identify that make such a difference in
these inspection judgements? What implications do they have for
the future of early years provision?
MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
Paragraph 46 notes that secondary schools are
generally better than primary schools in terms of self-evaluation
and their ability to demonstrate capacity to improve, yet a higher
proportion of primary schools inspected were judged to be good
or outstanding (paragraph 43).
— What does HMCI believe to be the
relationship between these two findings?
— Would HMCI agree that Ofsted's focus
on school self-evaluation, via the Self Evaluation Form (SEF),
may detract some schools from genuine school improvement work?
— Would HMCI agree that the workload
associated with the SEF is more manageable in secondary schools
than it is in primary schools, particularly small primary schools
which may have a teaching head teacher and no other senior members
of staff to whom the completion of sections of the SEF might be
delegated?
The Annual Report says "the small proportion
of schools that are struggling usually recognise their weaknesses
but have been unable to overcome them. In secondary schools in
particular, this is linked to weak leadership and management".
It goes on to report "in almost all schools, the care provided
for pupils is at least satisfactory; in a large majority (77%)
it is good or outstanding" (paragraph 49).
— Would HMCI agree that a school which
"knows itself" and is aware of its weaknesses would
be unlikely to have excessively weak leadership and management?
— Would HMCI agree that the high ratings
cited for care would be even higher if schools which were judged
inadequate in others aspects of their provision were not prevented
from being awarded the highest ratings in their strongest elements?
— Would HMCI agree that these findings
show that schools and teachers do not deliberately set out to
fail pupils, as is reported in some sections of the media and
elsewhere?
A recurrent theme in HMCI's Annual Reports of
recent years has been the "unacceptable range in the quality
of provision for subjects other than English and mathematics"
(paragraph 72). This has regularly been linked to "weak subject
knowledge on the part of some teachers" (paragraph 71). The
Annual Report no longer addresses the quality of all of the subjects
taught in schools, however, as a result of the changes to the
school inspection framework.
— Does HMCI believe that this new format
to the Annual Report provides sufficient information on the quality
of foundation subjects as well as science? Is the consideration
of some humanities subjects, as part of the "National Identity"
key theme an adequate replacement for the rich information on
all subjects which was a feature of previous Annual Reports?
— Would HMCI agree that there may be
a link between this development and schools' low prioritisation
of improvements in the teaching of subjects other than English
and mathematics?
— How can schools be encouraged to
develop a broader curriculum and links between different areas
of the curriculum when the Ofsted inspection system is still so
heavily reliant on national test data for English and mathematics?
Paragraph 94 says that "most schools placed
in the special measures category are removed from it in the second
year". In addition, 92% of schools given a notice to improve
had made sufficient progress to be judged at least satisfactory
after a year.
— Given these findings, how useful
does HMCI believe the new statutory guidance for schools causing
concern, in particular, the reduction in the amount of time to
"turn around" such schools?
— Does HMCI believe it to be realistic
or fair to begin arrangements to close down a school after its
first monitoring visit?
INITIAL TEACHER
TRAINING
This section of the Annual Report reports only
on ITT provided by higher education-led partnerships or school-centred
training.
— Why was employment-based ITT inspected
during the previous year, particularly since it is the fastest
growing form of training and has been a cause of some concern
in previous Ofsted reports?
— Would HMCI agree that it would be
useful to separate general comments made about the quality of
provision, so that readers were able to distinguish between the
two types of provision being reported upon here?
Paragraph 186 notes a number of concerns about
the quality of support for subject knowledge in schools and recommends
that "mentors require more training to rectify this weakness".
— Would HMCI agree that this finding
is linked to that concerning the quality of foundation subject
teaching in primary schools?
— Would HMCI agree that this situation
has become a vicious circle, in that initial teacher training
is not preparing primary trainees to teach the full range of subjects
effectively and that serving teachers are unable to access the
subject training they need?
December 2007
| 
