The Work of Ofsted - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents


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 The arguments are made in my so far unpublished paper Special Treatment of Academies by Ofsted.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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 13 May 2009