1. The Association of Professionals in Education
and Children's Trusts, the representative body for school advisers,
inspectors and other educational improvement and children's services
professionals, offers the following comments to assist the Select
Committee inquiry.
An effective school accountability system is
unavoidable in today's climate of sharpening global economic competition,
as part of upskilling the labour force, and should be designed
to positively assist capacity-building within schools. The different
forms of such accountabilityformal inspection, local authority
reports and school self-evaluation and performance measuresshould
be better aligned, to maximize their practical usefulness. Certain
lessons may be learned in England from the Scottish model. An
independent inspectorate remains an effective mechanism, but cannot
by itself secure school improvement in all desirable respects.
Ofsted inspections:
are conducted by appropriately trained
and qualified inspectors;
should normally be held every four years
and include effective classroom observations;
should be subject to a short period of
notice; and
may be proportionate in scale, but should
remain rigorous in nature.
The School Improvement Partner role, as originally
conceived, has proved of limited value and the resultant trend
is rightly towards greater professionalism in external school
monitoring, support and challenge activity. A school report card
is a welcome concept, which could assist in measuring progress
against all of the Every Child Matters outcomes for children.
Is it right in principle that schools should be
held partially accountable for their performance?
3. It is right and inevitable, in the context
of today's globalised markets for goods and services, where a
highly-skilled workforce is of critical importance to developing
a competitive national economy. An effective school system is
a key building block in upskilling a national labour force and
schools will therefore become more publicly accountable for their
performance.
What should be the fundamental purposes of an
accountability system for schools, and in particular, to whom
should schools be accountable, for what should they be held accountable,
how should they be held to account and what should be the consequences?
4. An accountability system should help schools
to genuinely build capacity to improve concrete outcomes for children.
Schools should be accountable to a range of relevant interests,
including children, parents and carers, employers and local communities.
This is best achieved principally through local authorities, since
they are democratically accountable bodies with unique local identities
and relationships.
5. Schools themselves should be held accountable
not only for raising pupils' educational standards but for all
five Every Child Matters outcomes, to the extent that they can
influence these outcomes.
6. The forms of accountability will vary
as each principal mechanism offers distinct positive features.
However, they should be better aligned in England than has traditionally
been the case. Formal Ofsted inspections, local authority reports,
and school self-evaluation and performance measures, all have
a role to play but can prove more useful if carefully inter-linked.
7. The advantages of a more joined-up accountability
system can be identified by reference to Scotland. HMIE in Scotland
operate a school inspection model designed to recognise the specific
responsibilities which fall on schools and on local authorities
to secure improvement. This is a proportionate model, under which
the extent of HMIE engagement with schools varies with a school's
capacity to ensure improvement.
Each school has a "core inspection",
and "follow-through" activity by the local authority
is itself proportionate. Core inspections identify the key strengths
of a school, and HMIE evaluate the capacity of the school to achieve
further improvementtaking account of the quality of leadership,
the ability of the school to accurately identify priorities for
improvement, and earlier progress.
8. "Follow-through" options are
matched to the needs of the individual school, and include:
The school and LA taking responsibility
for planning further improvements and involving parents.
LA progress report to HMIE on improvement
after two years and LA reports to parents.
HMIE discusses action plan with school
and LA and arranges visits and meetings as needed to monitor and
advise. Follow-through inspection and report to parents after
two years.
HMIE works with the school and LA to
draw up an action plan and agree a detailed programme of activities.
9. Key principles behind this approach are:
a stronger emphasis on supporting improvement,
and developing capacity for further improvement, through core
and proportionate follow-through;
a focus on meeting the needs of all,
across a range of national priorities; and
increased emphasis on actual outcomes.
Is the current accountability system of inspection
and performance reporting for schools fit for purpose?
10. It is capable of improvement, as a system.
The individual components are broadly fit for purpose, but their
combined effectiveness can be enhanced through a linked-up approach.
How should schools be held accountable for their
performance in the context of increasing collaboration in education
provision?
11. The inspection system should be operated
in relation to individual schools, and carefully extended to collaboratives
and networks, at this stage in the evolution of collaborative
provision.
Is an Independent Inspectorate an appropriate
mechanism for holding schools to account?
12. A rigorous inspection system operated by
an independent inspectorate is an appropriate mechanism. The strengths
and limitations of periodic formal "snapshot" inspections
are well known, and the low level of complaints confirms the quality
of most inspections.
What is the impact of the inspection process on
school performance, including confidence, creativity and innovation?
13. Ofsted has at times commissioned independent
research into this issue. An example is the 2007 report by
the National Foundation for Educational Research entitled Evaluation
of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections. 1,500 schools
responded to the survey and the report noted that "nearly
two-thirds of survey respondents and just over half the case study
interviewees considered that the inspection had contributed to
school improvement. The main way it had contributed was by confirming,
prioritising and clarifying areas for improvement."
The conclusions pointed to a growing confidence in
schools' own self-evaluation processes, and, in terms of school
performance, noted that "both the qualitative findings and
analysis of the schools' outcomes data provide some indication
that assessment, monitoring and pupil tracking are the areas where
inspection has had the greatest impact."
14. However, it is unlikely that any "snapshot"
inspectorial system could by itself advance school-level creativity
and innovation. These facets are more likely to be encouraged
by external developmental services working consistently with individual
schools over time. The Audit Commission's national school survey
for 2008 showed 94% of schools rated the effectiveness of
their local authority school improvement service in challenging
the school to do better as satisfactory or above. The more detailed
questions asked, in relation to the local authority's support
for the education of looked-after children, promoting sustainable
development, delivering the Every Child Matters outcomes and developing
extended schools, also generated high levels of satisfaction including
changes through innovative and creative approaches.
Are inspectors appropriately qualified and trained
to carry out inspections, particularly in the light if the need
to report against Every Child Matters outcomes?
15. They are, but the Ofsted inspection
system is still evolving. This will involve changes to future
inspector training, recruitment and guidance. We acknowledge that
Ofsted lays down clear principles for school inspection contractors
in relation to inspector quality, selection, competencies, roles,
integrity and performance management.
Is it appropriate for inspection reports to be
placed in the public domain?
16. Yes. Parents, children, and other interested
parties, are fully entitled to examine inspection reports on individual
schools.
How often should inspections be carried out and
how long and detailed should these inspections be?
17. There is a case for introducing a standard
four year period between school inspections, matching the period
of office of school governors. However, a school may undergo major
change at other times, for example due to the retirement of an
effective headteacher, and such a significant development could
trigger early re-inspection. With regard to the length and detail
of the inspection, a key issue is the availability of time for
meaningful classroom observation by inspectors, as the quality
of teaching and learning remains central to a school's effectiveness.
This is difficult to reconcile with the suggestion in the recent
Ofsted consultation over post September 2009 changes that
"no inspection will last longer than two days" unless
the available size of teams is reviewed.
How much notice, if any, should a school receive
of an upcoming inspection?
18. A short period of notice is desirable to
assist inspectors in making reliable arrangements to meet a school's
senior management team. However, Aspect acknowledges this is not
the only factor here and that there is a case for nil notice inspections
given a tendency within some schools to over-prepare for inspections.
In the context of an inspection, what is the value
of :
the school's self-assessment
19. This is of considerable value, if it is robust
and honest. One of the key techniques for ensuring that this is
the case is to genuinely involve the whole school, including teaching
and non-teaching staff, in the self-evaluation process.
the results of national tests
20. These should be taken into account, and remain
of value provided that they are considered within the broader
social and economic context of the institution.
the school's contextual value added
scores
21. These are of real value in measuring progression
within a wider context, although different systems for calculating
value added have been used within the education service.
How much weight should be attached to these elements
in the inspection report?
22. The school's self-evaluation, provided that
it is robust, deserves significant weight. There is some validity
to the argument that the present system displays a degree of over-reliance
on national test results. A revised inspection report format might
reflect the improving overall quality of schools' self-assessment,
as Ofsted inspectors are increasingly experienced in accurately
identifying the quality of a school's self-evaluation.
In an inspection, how should emphasis be balanced
between educational appointment and other aspects of a school's
provision, such as the Every Child Matters outcomes?
23. These essentially deserve equal emphasis,
since they are closely interlinked. It is often the case that
children who underperform in academic terms face other genuine
vulnerabilities in their lives. If a longer-term perspective is
adopted, improving a child's ability to learn can help him or
her to overcome certain vulnerabilities later, and this point
could be reflected within a broad balance.
Should inspections be tailored to the current
performance levels of the specific school being inspected and,
if so, to what extent?
24. A good school can deteriorate quickly if,
for example, a key leader falls ill. Nonetheless, a proportionate
approach to inspections, inevitably based on the recent overall
performance of a school, can be justified to a degree on educational
grounds. However, effective classroom observations can take time,
and this limits the extent to which inspection of higher-performing
schools can be scaled down.
Has the introduction of a light-touch inspection
regime for higher-performing schools been appropriate?
25. In overall terms, the S.5 model of lighter-touch
inspections has proved appropriate, principally due to improvements
in the general quality of school self-evaluation and the growing
expertise of inspectors in identifying where self-evaluation remains
unreliable.
What are the mechanisms for identifying schools
which are underperforming and are those mechanisms adequate?
26. The role of the local authority and its school
improvement reports is vital, since there is more frequent contact
between the LA and local schools than is the case with Ofsted
inspection teams. Appropriate liaison between inspection teams
and local authorities should be enhanced.
How effective has the classification of "schools
causing concern" (special measures or improvement notice)
been in supporting improved performance in the schools concerned?
27. The answer to this rests on the practical
availability and quality of the external developmental support
deployed to support a school's recovery following such classification.
In overall terms, this classification has triggered valuable support
and proved effective.
Have School Improvement Partners (SIPs) been of
benefit to schools?
28. A two-year national evaluation of the "New
Relationship with Schools" project was commissioned by government
and published by York Consulting in 2008, which included useful
analysis of the SIP role. Key issues included the time commitment
required to perform this role and the level of professional skill
and knowledge involved. Although DfES had stated that "we
believe it is right to give a firm steer to secure a high proportion
of secondary headteachers as SIPs. We intend that three quarters
of them should be serving or recent secondary headteachers".
(A New Relationship with Schools: Next Steps, DfES and
Ofsted joint publication, 2005), the evaluation revealed a different
picture. It noted that "there are differences in the support
role played by different SIP types, with full-time local authority
employee SIPs more commonly capacity-building, monitoring progress,
brokering and managing support than serving headteacher SIPs.
A key factor influencing this is that the latter are more constrained
than other SIP types to deliver additional resource for schools
or to be more flexible to emerging demands" (page79). Departmental
data suggests that the proportion of accredited SIPs actually
performing the role who are also serving headteachers is significantly
below original government targets. The low level of time commitment
to the role required of SIPs, and the lack of central funding
for adequate skills-based training for these postholders, has
not helped. This may explain why the Government has required the
new "National Challenge Advisers" to devote significantly
more time to work with individual schools.
29. Aspect believes it is important to distinguish
between leadership roles based on line management responsibilities
and those which rest on external developmental functions sitting
outside any such hierarchy. This matters in because these two
types of leadership involve different skill sets. The former relies
on the skills of effectively exercising managerial authority over
others. The latter requires modern "soft" influencing
and negotiating skills not supported by managerial authority,
which are often related to new forms of knowledge management,
innovation, scenario and contingency planning and changes to organisational
cultures.
30. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the
distinct SIP role, as originally conceived, has not particularly
benefited local schools, and that genuinely professional external
school improvement roles are necessary.
Is the current procedure for complaints about
inspectors adequate?
31. Yes. Formal complaints are properly
and consistently recorded and investigated, under a well-established
procedure, and follow-up actions taken where deemed appropriate.
A broad view is taken over the time available for registering
such complaints and the existence of the complaints procedure
is notified on the Ofsted website and in relevant publications.
What aspects of a school's performance should
be measured and how?
32. Measurements should be provided for academic
attainment, the size of gaps between identifiable groups of pupils,
pupil progression and those elements of broader outcomes for children
under the ECM agenda which a school can influence.
How should these performance measurements be reported
and by whom?
33. Measurements relating to key performance
areas should be reported, in a regular and user-friendly fashion,
by schools and local authorities, so that individual schools,
and the broader progress of the schools system within a local
area, can be monitored.
To whom should this information be made available?
34. This information should be available to all
interested parties and, given, the wide range of concerned interests,
should be publicly available.
What is the effect of the current system of public
performance reporting (Achievement and Attainment Tables and the
online School Profile) on a schools' performance, including confidence,
creativity and innovation?
35. Detailed objective research would be required
to answer this with accuracy, since current school-level perceptions
are sometimes linked to a traditional general resentment of school
accountability mechanisms.
What is the impact on schools of league tables
published by the press?
36. The varied quality of press reporting can
result in negative effects for individual schools. However, much
of the regular media coverage is factual.
How useful is this information to stakeholders,
particularly parents?
37. League tables in themselves are clearly of
limited value, although they do furnish a level of basic information
and remain popular with parents.
What might a school report card provide that is
not covered by the current performance reporting system?
38. A School Report Card, is potentially valuable,
although we need to retain the benefits of external formal inspection
within an overall school accountability system. The elements we
would wish to see incorporated into such a card include the school's
performance with regard to attainment, narrowing "gaps",
pupil progress and a range of wider outcomes, since a school's
work with other partners in children's lives, is a key factor
in general performance. The local context of the school should
be described in the introduction to the card and the scores contained
in a School Report Card should be easy to interpret, with the
proviso that measurements are contextualised. Consistency in the
reporting of all features is important, which raises issues of
appropriate weightings to individual categories. An overall score
is Aspect's preferred methodology, but general guidance on the
significance of different types of score is also important.
Are there any issues which the school report card
should avoid or seek to inhibit?
39. Reporting parents' and pupils' views can
sometimes be too bald, especially where based on unrepresentative
samples. This argument is not to under-value parental and pupil
feedback as schools should be required to maintain systems for
collating parent and pupil views as influences on the SEF and
on school development planning.
Is the school report card potentially a sound
basis for informing parents providing a set of prioritised outcomes
for schools, providing a starting point for Ofsted inspections,
and providing a management tool for government?
40. It can potentially contribute to these desirable
objectives.
Could the school report card appropriately replace
some Ofsted reporting?
41. No, it is important that a comprehensive
external inspection system is maintained.
February 2009