Appendix 3: School Accountability:
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. We
are satisfied that schools should be held publicly accountable
for their performance as providers of an important public service.
We concur with the views expressed in evidence to us that the
two major consequences of the accountability system should be
school improvement and improvement in broader outcomes for children
and young people, including well-being. (Paragraph 15)
2. The
New Relationship with Schools policy was a laudable attempt by
the Government to simplify the school accountability system, particularly
in relation to inspection. However, the Government has continued
to subject schools to a bewildering array of new initiatives and
this has in many ways negated the good work started in New Relationship
with Schools. (Paragraph 24)
3. We
are concerned that the Government's 21st Century Schools White
Paper signals even greater complexity in an already overly complex
system of school accountability and improvement initiatives. There
is a real danger that schools may become overwhelmed by the intricacies
of the proposed reforms and that School Improvement Partners and
local authorities may not have sufficient time or resources to
mediate effectively between schools and the myriad providers of
school improvement support. (Paragraph 36)
Schools' Self-Evaluation, Self-Improvement Partners
and Local Authorities
4. We
note that Ofsted is actively considering ways of involving governing
bodies more in the inspection process, particularly where inspections
are conducted without notice. However, it would have been preferable
had the 2009 inspection framework been introduced following a
satisfactory resolution of this issue. We recommend that Ofsted
bring forward at the earliest opportunity firm proposals setting
out how governing bodies will be appropriately involved in all
inspections. (Paragraph 45)
5. We
urge the Government to reconsider the proposals to place additional
statutory duties on governors. We support the principle of better
training for governors, but we recommend that the Government set
out a detailed strategy for encouraging governors to take up training
opportunities without training requirements becoming a barrier
to recruitment. (Paragraph 47)
6. We
are persuaded that self-evaluation—as an iterative, reflexive
and continuous process, embedded in the culture of a school—is
a highly effective means for a school to consolidate success and
secure improvement across the full range of its activities. It
is applicable, not just to its academic performance, but across
the full range of a school's influence over the well-being of
the children who learn there and the community outside. (Paragraph
53)
7. We
believe that Ofsted should do more to encourage schools to be
creative and produce evidence of the self-evaluation process which
works for them and speaks to the true culture and ethos of their
own school. Ofsted should ensure that its own inspection processes
are flexible enough to accommodate and give appropriate weight
to alternative forms of evidence of self-evaluation. (Paragraph
59)
8. We
are attracted to a model of accountability which encourages and
supports schools towards a meaningful, continuous self-evaluation
process, evidenced in a form which the school considers most appropriate
and verified through inspection. We are persuaded that true self-evaluation
is at the heart of what a good school does. For a school which
is performing at a good level, embedding processes which encourage
continuous self-improvement are likely to be of far more practical
benefit than an inspection every few years. The latter is necessary
mainly as a check to see that a school is performing at the appropriate
level. Inspection should be a positive experience, reinforcing
good practice and fostering dialogue with schools in relation
to areas where further improvement can be made. The Government
and Ofsted should endeavour to do more to help schools which have
not yet come to terms with the concept of self-evaluation in its
fullest sense. (Paragraph 63)
9. We
welcome the fact that the National College for Leadership of Schools
and Children's Services is being asked to review its training
and accreditation procedures to support School Improvement Partners
in their new role. (Paragraph 76)
10. The
Government must take care that it does not exacerbate the existing
problems with recruitment of School Improvement Partners by increasing
the training burden and introducing requirements that existing
School Improvement Partners be re-accredited and that they all
carry an ongoing licence to practice. (Paragraph 77)
11. We
recommend that the Government produce clear plans to show how
and from where enough School Improvement Partners (SIPs) with
appropriate skills and experience will be recruited with sufficient
time to dedicate to the expanded remit for SIPs which is proposed
in the Government's White Paper. (Paragraph 84)
12. We
agree with the Audit Commission that local authorities should
be more involved with monitoring, supporting and, where necessary,
intervening in school budgets and finance. It is indefensible
that the expenditure of such vast sums should attract so little
scrutiny. Central government should make clear that schools must
make a proper accounting of their expenditure to local authorities;
and that local authorities should be as engaged with the monitoring
of finance as they are expected to be with the monitoring of performance
and standards. We do not advocate an erosion of schools' autonomy,
but we consider it important that the correct level of financial
support is available to them in order to derive maximum value
for money from the schools budget. (Paragraph 91)
13. We
approve of the collaborative approach to school improvement taken
by some local authorities; and we consider that partnership working
between local authorities and all schools in the local area is
a valuable means of providing support and spreading best practice.
We urge central and local government to work together to ensure
a more consistent approach across local authorities in this regard.
(Paragraph 96)
14. We
urge the Government to recognise the good work done in the local
authorities which demonstrate a systematic, collaborative approach
towards the identification of schools in need of improvement and
the provision of support in raising their standards of performance.
We recommend that the Government should be sparing in the use
of its extended statutory powers to intervene in relation to school
improvement. We consider that these powers should be used only
in cases where the relevant local authority has failed in its
duty to secure school improvement. They should not be used as
a mechanism for central government to increase its control over
the way in which schools are managed. (Paragraph 102)
The Inspectorate
15. In
general terms, we support the approach to inspection set out in
the 2009 inspection framework. We consider that a frequency of
inspection in proportion to a school's current levels of performance
is sensible, although some concerns remain about identification
of schools where there is an unexpected slide in performance.
We consider that a short notice period for inspection is sensible,
but schools must be given sufficient time to collate all the necessary
evidence and ensure attendance of key personnel. Without-notice
inspection is appropriate where there are particular concerns
about performance, and safeguarding in particular, but this approach
should not be used without good reason. (Paragraph 111)
16. If
visits to schools are to be as short as two days—and bearing
in mind that some of those days will be taken up by preliminaries
rather than by inspection itself—inspectors will need to
be highly trained and well qualified if they are to make an accurate
evaluation of school provision (Paragraph 112)
17. We
remind Ofsted of the need for transparency and publicity for the
way in which inspection data are combined to form final judgments
on schools. (Paragraph 113)
18. We
support the principle of increased emphasis on the views of pupils
and parents, but we have some reservations about the level of
responses to questionnaires, particularly for schools with a challenging
intake. We urge Ofsted to make transparent the approach that inspectors
will take when forming judgements on schools where there has been
a low level of response to questionnaires from parents; and it
should not rule out the possibility of meetings with parents.
(Paragraph 114)
19. We
are persuaded of the need for an inspectorate, independent of
government, which can assure the quality of provision in individual
schools, as well as producing more general reports on aspects
of the education system at a national level. We consider that
the latter are particularly important, not least because they
should provide a sound evidential basis for policy-making by the
Government. (Paragraph 121)
20. Both
Ofsted and the Government should be alert to any sign that the
growth of Ofsted's responsibilities is causing it to become an
unwieldy and unco-ordinated body. (Paragraph 122)
21. We
believe that Ofsted should aspire to have HMIs lead all inspections.
Schools causing concern should always be inspected by a team headed
by an HMI. (Paragraph 127)
22. We
note that Ofsted has a duty to encourage improvement in schools.
However, we do not accept that Ofsted necessarily has an active
role to play in school improvement. It is Ofsted's role to evaluate
a school's performance across its many areas of responsibility
and to identify issues which need to be addressed so that a school
can be set on the path to improvement. Ofsted has neither the
time nor resources to be an active participant in the improvement
process which takes place following inspection, aside from the
occasional monitoring visit to verify progress. (Paragraph 137)
23. We
recommend that Ofsted's role in school improvement be clarified
so that the lines of responsibility are made clear to all those
involved in the school system. Ofsted's function is a vital one:
it is, in the purest sense, to hold schools to account for their
performance. It is for others—schools themselves, assisted
by School Improvement Partners, local authorities and other providers
of support—to do the work to secure actual improvement in
performance. The Chief Inspector already has a wide and important
remit: she should feel no compulsion to make it wider. (Paragraph
138)
24. We
recommend a review of the data underlying comparator measures
or sets of measures to ensure that they accurately reflect the
range of factors that can impact on school performance. (Paragraph
150)
25. We
consider that the quality of school provision beyond the teaching
of academic subjects is extremely important and that Ofsted has
a duty to reflect this in a fair and balanced manner in its inspection
reports. (Paragraph 157)
26. We
urge Ofsted to rebalance its inspection framework in two ways,
in order to reflect better the true essence of the school. First,
when evaluating academic attainment, we recommend that Ofsted
gives less evidential weight given to test results and derivative
measures and gives more weight to the quality of teaching and
learning observed by inspectors in the classroom. Second, when
evaluating a school's performance in terms of pupil well-being
and other non-academic areas, we recommend that Ofsted should
move beyond the search for quantitative measures of performance
and that it should focus more effort on developing qualitative
measures which capture a broader range of a school's activity.
(Paragraph 161)
Achievement and Attainment Tables and the School
Report Card
27. Performance
data have been a part of the educational landscape in England
for some years. Like it or not, they are a feature of the school
accountability system and we recognise the manifest difficulties
in retreating from that position, even if a watchful eye should
be kept on the consequences of the abandonment of performance
tables linked to test results in other parts of the United Kingdom.
If such data is to be collected, much can be done to mitigate
the more unfortunate aspects of the publication. We take a pragmatic
view and believe that the focus of debate should move towards
a more fruitful discussion of the types of data and information
collected and the method of presentation. (Paragraph 167)
28. The
Achievement and Attainment Tables present a very narrow view of
school performance and there are inherent methodological and statistical
problems with the way they are constructed. For instance, they
are likely to favour independent and selective schools, which
have a lower intake of deprived children or of children with Special
Educational Needs. It is unsurprising, therefore, if such schools
consistently top the academic league tables. Yet most of those
who may wish to use the Tables, particularly parents, remain unaware
of the very serious defects associated with them and will interpret
the data presented without taking account of their inherent flaws.
As a result, many schools feel so constrained by the fear of failure
according to the narrow criteria of the Tables that they resort
to measures such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum,
an inappropriate focusing of resources on borderline candidates,
and encouraging pupils towards 'easier' qualifications, all in
an effort to maximise their performance data. There is an urgent
need for the Government to move away from these damaging Achievement
and Attainment Tables and towards a system which gives a full
and rounded account of a school's provision. (Paragraph 176)
29. We
urge the Government to work closely with Ofsted in order to produce
a model of the school report card appropriate for use by the inspectorate.
However, if in Ofsted's view the school report card ultimately
takes a form which is unsuitable for the purpose of risk assessment,
as an independent regulator, Ofsted should not feel compelled
to adopt the school report card as a replacement for its interim
assessment. (Paragraph 184)
30. We
welcome in principle the introduction of the school report card
as a rationalisation of current accountability mechanisms and
an attempt at providing a broader evidence base for assessing
schools' performance. However, the Government must take care in
developing its proposals that it tailors the school report card
to the particular needs of the English schools system. Lessons
can be learned from international practices and the case of the
New York school report card will be particularly relevant; but
the Government should not assume that what works elsewhere will
necessarily work in the English system. (Paragraph 196)
31. Schools
should be strongly incentivised by the accountability system to
take on challenging pupils and work hard to raise their levels
of attainment. To this end, we support the proposals to introduce
credits on the school report card for narrowing the gaps in achievement
between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. However, we strongly
caution the Government against the introduction of any penalties
for increasing gaps in achievement. If the Government were to
attach such penalties, it is likely that schools would seek to
deny school places to challenging pupils in order to avoid the
risk of a lower school report card score. They might also create
incentives for schools not to push gifted and talented students
to reach really high levels of achievement. (Paragraph 206)
32. We
have been struck by the weight of evidence we have received which
argues against an overall score on the school report card. It
is true that Ofsted comes to an overall judgement on a four point
scale, but this judgement is meant to be the result of a very
extensive analysis of a school's provision across the board, relying
on quantitative and qualitative evidence and first-hand experience
of the school at work. A school report card is not, and in our
view never can be, a full account of a school's performance, yet
the inclusion of an overall score suggests that it is. (Paragraph
211)
33. The
range of discrete measures proposed for inclusion in the school
report card certainly present a broader picture of a school than
the current Achievement and Attainment Tables; but they cannot
be the basis for a definitive judgement of overall performance
in the same way as we are entitled to expect an Ofsted judgement
to be. On balance, we think that parents and others should be
able to decide for themselves those measures of performance most
important to them. We approve of the proposal both to grade and
rate performance in each category on the school report card, but
we are not persuaded of the appropriateness of and need for an
overall score. (Paragraph 212)
34. We
recommend that the Government guards against serial changes to
reporting criteria for the school report card once it is introduced
nationally. The ability to track school performance on a range
of issues over time is potentially a valuable feature of the reformed
system, but this will not be possible if the reporting criteria
are in a constant state of flux. (Paragraph 216)
35. There
is potential for substantial confusion to be introduced if the
reasons for differences between scores on the school report card
and Ofsted judgements are not clear, leading to a perception of
incoherence in the accountability system. This would be unfortunate,
as the success of any accountability system depends on the extent
to which users have confidence in it. We recommend that DCSF and
Ofsted work together to find a way to eradicate, or at least minimise
the impact of, this problem. If the Government accepts our recommendation
not to include an overall score in the school report card, the
potential for conflicting accounts of school performance would
be greatly reduced. (Paragraph 217)
36. The
Government must address the methodological problems inherent in
basing important indicators on survey evidence. It is unacceptable
that schools with the most challenging intakes might suffer skewed
performance scores because of a low response rate to surveys for
the purposes of the school report card. (Paragraph 222)
37. Academic
research in the field of school effectiveness is lacking in the
field of pupil well-being and wider outcomes beyond assessment
results. In the absence of robust, independent research evidence,
the Government should exercise great caution in pursuing its otherwise
laudable aim of widening the accountability system beyond simple
test scores. (Paragraph 223)
38. We
do not believe that the indicators based on parent and pupil surveys,
together with data on attendance, exclusions, the amount of sport
provided and the uptake of school lunches, provide a balanced
picture of a school's performance. In the absence of a set of
performance indicators which are able to provide a fully rounded
and accurate picture of how well a school is supporting and enhancing
the well-being and outcomes of its pupils, the school report card
should not purport to give a balanced view of a school's overall
performance in this or any other area. The Government should make
clear on the face of the school report card that its contents
should only be considered as a partial picture of the work of
a school. This is not to say that we do not consider the inclusion
of well-being indicators to be a welcome development: we are merely
concerned that parents and others should understand the limits
of the information which is presented to them on the school report
card. (Paragraph 224)
39. We
are pleased that the Government is now moving away from the Achievement
and Attainment Tables based on a narrow set of measures of academic
achievement derived from test results. We believe that the move
towards the broader evidence base proposed for the school report
card is a step in the right direction. However, we reiterate our
warning to the Government that it should not make claims for the
school report card which do not stand up to scrutiny. It will
never constitute a definitive view of a school's performance but
it might, if properly constructed, be a useful tool in assessing
a broader range of aspects of a school's performance than is possible
at present. (Paragraph 225)
40. At
the start of the pilot study of the school report card, it is
too early for us to make detailed recommendations about its precise
contents. At this stage, we simply urge the Government to take
account of the concerns raised by witnesses to this inquiry. There
is still much work to be done in developing the school report
card into a workable format. (Paragraph 226)
Conclusion: complexity, consistency and coercion
41. The
complexity of the school accountability and improvement system
in England is creating a barrier to genuine school improvement
based on the needs of individual schools and their pupils. We
support the message in the 21st Century Schools White Paper, that
schools should be empowered to take charge of their own improvement
processes. However, the Government's continuing tendency to impose
serial policy initiatives on schools belies this message and the
relentless pace of reform has taken its toll on schools and their
capacity to deliver a balanced education to their pupils. We urge
the Government to refrain from introducing frequent reforms and
allow schools a period of consolidation. (Paragraph 239)
42. Inconsistencies
in the approach to school accountability and improvement and inconsistencies
in the judgments which are made in different parts of the accountability
system are both confusing and damaging. Confusion undermines the
credibility of the accountability system and schools which find
themselves pulled in different directions are unlikely to be able
to give their full attention to the fundamental task of providing
their pupils with a broad and balanced education. (Paragraph 249)
43. We
recommend that the Government revisits the proposals for reform
of the school accountability and improvement system set out in
the 21st Century Schools White Paper with a view to giving more
substance to its claims that schools are responsible for their
own improvement. We have received strong evidence that schools
feel coerced and constrained by the outcomes of Ofsted inspection
and programmes set up by central government, such as National
Challenge. We have consistently noted the adverse effects that
targets have had on the education of children and young people.
The Government should seek means of delivering support and challenge
to schools without what many witnesses perceived as a harmful
'naming and shaming' approach endemic in the current system. (Paragraph
260)
44. The
problem with the Government's assessment of the accountability
system is that it implies that schools welcome the opportunity
to take "ownership of their own improvement" but then
provides the perfect example of how they have been prevented from
doing just that. The "flexibility" of the system, allowing
a constant shift in priorities by central government, is precisely
the reason why schools are struggling to engage with the accountability
regime and myriad school improvement mechanisms. The Government
refers to the flexibility of the accountability system as if this
is an inherent benefit. The opposite is true. Schools and, indeed,
local authorities are in sore need of a period of stability so
that they can regroup, take the necessary time to identify where
their priorities lie and then work, with appropriate support,
to secure the necessary improvements. (Paragraph 262)
45. It
is time for the Government to allow schools to refocus their efforts
on what matters: children. For too long, schools have struggled
to cope with changing priorities, constant waves of new initiatives
from central government, and the stresses and distortions caused
by performance tables and targets. (Paragraph 265)
46. The
Government should place more faith in the professionalism of teachers
and should support them with a simplified accountability and improvement
system which challenges and encourages good practice rather than
stigmatising and undermining those who are struggling. In doing
so, it is vital for effective accountability that the independence
of HM Inspectorate be safeguarded and maintained at all times.
We believe that the Government should revisit the plans set out
in its 21st Century Schools White Paper and simplify considerably
the accountability framework and improvement strategies it proposes.
(Paragraph 266)
| 
