Memorandum submitted by Roger Titcombe
This submission concerns the special arrangements
that Ofsted has instituted for the inspection of academies. These
differ in important ways from the arrangements for inspecting
other schools. Evidence is presented that these special arrangements
may tend to produce especially favourable inspection reports for
academies and especially unfavourable reports for schools designated
to close and be replaced by academies.
The evidence lies in a Protocol agreed between
Ofsted and the Academies Group at DfES (now DCSF). The arguments
are made in my so far unpublished paper Special Treatment of
Academies by Ofsted.
DFES ACADEMIES
DIVISION/OFSTED
PROTOCOL FOR
WORKING WITH
ACADEMIES DECEMBER
2004
— Two later versions of the Protocol
do not change its effect but omit or alter key paragraphs that
indicate special treatment of academies.
SPECIAL TREATMENT
OF ACADEMIES
BY OFSTED
— The nature of the links between Ofsted
and DCFS.
— Differences in the inspection regime
for academies compared to state schools.
— Conflict with Ofsted terms of reference.
— Arguments about the justification
for Ofsted advising DfES about the academies programme.
— Indications of possible special treatment
of academies from inspection reports.
— Evidence of collusion between Ofsted
and DCFS with regard to inspections and proposals for re-inspections
of academies and designated predecessor schools.
— Evidence of ministerial communication
with Ofsted regarding inspections of individual named academies.
I am a retired headteacher (since 2003) and
I have undertaken independent educational research, some of which
has been published in educational journals. My main focus of activity
has concerned the quality of the curriculum and how it becomes
degraded when schools are under great pressure to achieve headline
5+A*-Cs. This can only be revealed from the subject by subject
examination results, which are secret in the case of academies.
DCSF refuses to release these stating that it does not hold them.
This is relevant to Ofsted inspections of academies as it is only
from such information that statements about examination results
and the curriculum can be evaluated.
I have plenty of raw data from FOI enquiries
to support the arguments in the paper including analyses of the
named HMI involved in academies inspections.
My Ofsted paper has not yet been published as
the academies whose 2006 subject results (obtained indirectly
by FOI) I quote refuse to confirm or correct them (or even answer
correspondence).
I regard the continuing secrecy of these subject
results to be a major issue in evaluating the performance of academies
as I understand that commissioned reports (NAO etc) also failed
to have them, and so could not possibly come to valid conclusions
about effectiveness and performance.
SPECIAL TREATMENT
OF ACADEMIES
BY OFSTED
1. Freedom of Information (FOI)
Enquiries have revealed that Ofsted is deeply
involved in the academies programme to an extent that raises questions
about the impartiality of its inspections of these schools.
2. The nature of the involvement
Ofsted has agreed a Protocol for working with
a DfES team referred to as the "Academies Group" (AG).
Ofsted is involved in providing detailed advice concerning the
setting up of individual academies. This advice extends to directly
contributing to academies policy through a programme of regular
meetings. Given that Ofsted is so closely identified with the
development of individual academies and with the success of the
academies programme as a whole how can it properly fulfil an independent
inspection role? Are there any indications that the Ofsted inspections
of academies differ from those of other schools? Many such indications
are now emerging from further enquiries.
3. Inspections of newly opened academies
The timing of the first Ofsted inspection of
a new academy is agreed in advance in consultation with the Academies
Group. It is also agreed in the Protocol that such inspections
should be "helpful in promoting the academy's progress".
There is no such understanding about the purpose of Ofsted inspections
for all other schools. It is important to recognise that although
Ofsted may refer to such initial inspections as "monitoring
visits", they are in fact formal inspections under Section
8 of the 2005 Education Act.
4. Section 5 Inspections of academies
In the case of academies, Ofsted has agreed
with the Academies Group that all inspections will be led by an
HMI from a specially constituted group. This is just one important
respect in which inspections of academies differ from those of
other schools. The Protocol explains that a small team of HMI
should be involved because of, "the new and different nature
of academies." There is, however, no explanation of the nature
of the difference between academies and other schools that justifies
exclusive inspections by a small specially chosen team other than,
"the need to ensure that, a consistent approach is adopted".
5. The HMI team that inspects academies
There were 19 full inspections of academies
between December 2004 and May 2007. These have all been carried
out under the leadership of just eight HMI. With one exception,
all of these lead HMI have also been members of the inspection
teams of other academies.
6. Ofsted defence of the link with DCSF
Ofsted argues that it is sensible for DCSF to
seek advice from them regarding the setting up of academies. This
may be so, but surely not directly from the individual members
of the special HMI team that then goes on to inspect them. It
might be reasonable for Ofsted to provide general independent
advice from its experts but it is clear that what is happening
goes further than this.
7. The Ofsted constitution and terms of reference
The Ofsted website www.ofsted.gov.uk/aboutus
contains the following clear and unambiguous statement.
"We do not report to government ministers
but directly to Parliament (and to the Lord Chancellor about children
and family courts administration). This independence means you
can rely on us for impartial information."
This is directly contradicted by the Protocol.
For example:
Para 4: that Ofsted monitoring letters of
visits to "low attaining" secondary schools will be
copied to the AG Ofsted contact point who will then arrange for
them to be forwarded to relevant AD colleagues
Para 5: Ofsted will ensure that the lead
monitoring HMI (for those schools which are subject to SM) or
the HMI who visits the school (under other arrangements) is aware
of the school's transition to Academy status. The Ofsted lead
Academy HMI will discuss progress or concerns about the school
with the AG lead adviser to ensure a coordinated approach with
the predecessor school during the period leading up to opening
as an Academy. This will take place at termly AG/Ofsted meetings.
Para 9: HMI will report any concerns raised
by their findings during visits.
Para 11: All Academies will be visited by
HMI, normally during the first two years after opening. These
monitoring visits[21]
will normally be undertaken by one or two HMI over two days. HMI
will report their findings orally and in writing (presumably to
AG).
The Protocol is also clear that the communication
is two-way. Ofsted inspectors are fully briefed on any emerging
problems in individual academies.
Para 12: An initial monitoring visit may
be made as early as the second term if Ofsted or AG has serious
concerns about the Academy's progress, or if Ofsted and AG agree
that such a visit will be helpful in promoting the Academy's progress.
This latter commits Ofsted to the aim of promoting
the progress of the academy: so much for the "independence"
of Ofsted and the ability of the public or Parliament to be able
to rely on it for "impartial information".
8. Evidence from inspection reports
It is difficult to challenge Section 5 Ofsted
reports because they do not include the raw data on which the
judgements are made. These new style inspections are carried out
to a very tightly defined template that leaves little scope for
the professional judgements of inspectors on any issues outside
the framework, regardless of the importance of any such concerns.
Inspections are now, to a considerable degree, mainly a check
on the school's self-evaluation, which is even more tightly defined
by DfES. It could therefore be argued that the inspection process
is more to do with policing compliance with government education
policy on the part of senior managers of schools, than with making
objective, independent professional judgements of the quality
of teaching and learning taking place. Most importantly inspection
reports do not include the latest subject based examination results.
These are kept secret by academies and DfES refuses to divulge
them under FOI on the grounds that it doesn't have them. It seems
very odd that the DfES Academies Group can be having regular timetabled
meetings with Ofsted without referring to the latest full subject
exam results for each academy.
9. The 2006 subject examination results
for a small number of academies have been obtained indirectly
by means of FOI. The latest Section 5 Ofsted reports can be examined
for these schools against the hitherto secret subject exam results.
10. For example, West London Academy was
inspected in September 2006. The 2006 GCSE/GNVQ examination results
would therefore have been available to the inspection team. These
show that just 14% of pupils were entered for Double Award science
with only 9% obtaining an A*-C pass. Double Award science is the
course recommended by DfES for all pupils. A further 77% were
entered for single award science but only 16% achieved A*-C. Just
6% gained an A*-C in history and only 2% in geography. In European
languages just one pupil obtained an A*-C in French and three
pupils in German. Only 25% of pupils gained five A*-Cs including
English and maths.
11. The only comment in the inspection report
related to these results is, "The secondary phase curriculum
is satisfactory". The judgements on the sixth form are however
damning. The curriculum provision is graded as inadequate, lacking
breadth and balance, and offering only a limited range of courses.
The inspectors have not made the obvious link between the poverty
of provision for mainstream academic subjects at KS4 and the ability
of the school to provide a full range of opportunities in the
sixth form. Given the minimal provision in science, humanities
and languages it must be doubtful that the school has the teachers
with the necessary specialist expertise to successfully teach
these subjects at A Level or to more than a handful of pupils
at GCSE. The report says nothing about the expertise and qualifications
of the teaching staff and their consequent ability to deliver
a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils. It is not just
the curriculum in the sixth form that is judged inadequate, but
also the general provision of education and services for meeting
the needs of learners. This would seem to be a clear judgement
of inadequacy of the sixth form as a whole, inviting the conclusion
that the school is failing to give its sixth form students an
acceptable standard of education; normally a signal for the imposition
of Special Measures or at least a Notice to Improve.
12. Ofsted reports now contain a letter
to pupils. The lead HMI wrote as follows.
We were thrilled to see the huge improvements
since our first HMI visit over a year ago.
Your GCSE results were really good.
The principal, the headteacher and the academy
leadership team have worked really hard and it's(sic) paying off.
Your academy is remarkable.
We hope that your academy, with your help, just
keeps getting better and better.
13. Surely the proper role of Ofsted and
HMI with regard to the DCSF, the Academies Group, and pupils and
parents, is not to hope for improvement but to judge and report
impartially on the success of the school in providing high quality
education. Because of the high level of support and advice given
by Ofsted to the academies programme it is even more important
that these schools are inspected impartially on the same basis
as other schools. It is self evident that organisations trusted
to report objectively on standards in public services should not
be too close to the authority that promotes, organises and manages
those services. Academies remain deeply controversial. Given the
high level of secrecy that shrouds their operation, to whom can
the public now go for a truly objective and independent evaluation
of these publicly funded but privately owned and controlled schools?
14. Further FOI enquiries have produced
the agendas and notes from three recent meetings between the DCFS
Academies Group and the representatives of the special Ofsted
academies inspection team.
The following examples illustrate the close
links that exist.
"?? Gave general feedback including progress
made and information on positive inspections. All pleased with
M?? and W?? inspections" (Names deleted)
" Ministers have shown a very keen interest
in progress."
"?? To use key points in presentation
to Principals." (Is ?? an Ofsted HMI or a DSCF civil servant?
Either raises questions)
"HMI monitoring of predecessor schools.
I?? Out of Special Measures—Re-inspection?
(What is going on here?)
"Information Exchange Forum—to
include SSAT/HMI/DfES envisaged for summer term." (Presumably
this has now taken place. Why should the Ofsted HMI that inspects
academies be meeting with SSAT that promotes them?)
15. The HMI team that meets with the DfES
Academies Group.
Ofsted is represented at these meetings by two
HMI, both of whom have been formally involved in inspections of
academies and one of whom has carried out more inspections of
academies than any other HMI.
December 2007
Annex
DfES ACADEMIES DIVISION/OFSTED
PROTOCOL FOR WORKING WITH ACADEMIES
OFSTED INVOLVEMENT
IN THE
ACADEMIES POLICY
1. Academies Division (AD) will seek advice
from Ofsted—through the Ofsted Academy lead HMI—on
initial proposals for an Academy prior to moving into the Feasibility
phase.
2. AD will inform Ofsted prior to submitting
to Ministers a proposal to enter into a funding agreement to enter
the Implementation phase and to establish an Academy.
3. AD will keep Ofsted informed of progress,
and provide Ofsted with the opportunity to contribute to the development
of the Academies policy, through termly meetings between Ofsted
and AD.
OFSTED INVOLVEMENT
WITH ACADEMIES
AND THEIR
PREDECESSOR SCHOOLS
4. Ofsted monitoring letters of visits to
low attaining secondary schools in receipt of Leadership Incentive
Grant (LIG), Special Measures (SM) and any other Ofsted visits
to schools will be copied to the AD Ofsted contact point who will
arrange for them to be forwarded to relevant AD colleagues.
PREDECESSOR SCHOOLS
5. When they enter Feasibility phase, each
Academy predecessor school will have a named AD lead Adviser.
Ofsted will ensure that the lead monitoring HMI (for those schools
which are subject to SM) or the HMI who visits the school (under
the arrangements for LIG schools, if it is not subject to SM)
are aware of the school's transition to Academy status. The Ofsted
lead Academy HMI will discuss progress or concerns about the school
with the AD lead adviser to ensure a coordinated approach with
the predecessor school during the period leading up to opening
as an Academy. This will take place at termly AD/Ofsted meetings.
6. All of the predecessor schools will receive
a visit during the Academy's Implementation phase. The timing
of this visit will be discussed at the termly AD/Ofsted meetings
and will usually be scheduled for the term following the start
of the Implementation phase. However, if the school has recently
been inspected by Ofsted or if there are other circumstances where
Ofsted and AD agree that it would be of benefit for a visit to
take place at a different point, including during the Feasibility
phase, then alternative arrangements may be agreed at the termly
meetings
7. The AD Adviser lead will send Ofsted
a short summary of progress with the Academy proposal prior to
HMI's monitoring visit.
8. HMI will report any concerns raised by
their findings during visits. If the concerns are significant
or if there are other circumstances which make such a course of
action appropriate, HMI reserve the right to make a return visit.
If HMI judge that the school is failing to provide an acceptable
standard of education and requires special measures, HMI have
a duty to publish a report which states this.
NEWLY OPENED
ACADEMIES
9. All Academies will be visited by HMI,
normally between the second and sixth term after opening. These
monitoring visits will normally be undertaken by one or two HMI
over two days. HMI will report their findings orally and in writing.
If they have concerns, these will be identified clearly; if the
concerns are serious, HMI may arrange to make one or more further
monitoring visits before the school has its section 3, deemed
section 10 inspection. This is without prejudice to HMCI's power
to cause any school to be inspected at any time.
10. Ofsted and AD will consider the optimum
timing for HMI to make a monitoring visit to a newly-opened Academy.
An initial monitoring visit may be made as early as the second
term if Ofsted or AD have serious concerns about the Academy's
progress, or if Ofsted and AD agree that such a visit will be
helpful in promoting the Academy's progress. This may be the case,
for example, where there were serious concerns about the performance
of the predecessor school or schools, and these concerns had not
been addressed prior to the opening of the Academy. If the findings
of the initial visit are positive, then further monitoring visits
may not be necessary.
11. All Academies will be inspected by HMI
within three years of opening unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Until August 2005, they will be undertaken by HMI under section
3 of the School Inspections Act, will result in a published report
and will be deemed to be section 10 inspections under the Act.
From September 2005 all Academies will be inspected within three
years of opening under the new national inspection arrangements.
The first inspection of an Academy will be led by HMI.
12. The above procedure has been agreed
between the DfES and Ofsted to acknowledge and accommodate the
new and different nature of academies. Because Academies are not
yet numerous, it would be difficult, under the current inspection
arrangements, for registered inspectors to gain experience of
visiting them. HMI who undertake the visits will have a good understanding
of academies. The inspection of all academies by HMI will help
to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted, and this will
be reinforced by the involvement of some HMI in the inspections
of several Academies.
21 A monitoring visit is an inspection under section
3 of the School Inspections Act 1996. Back
| 
