Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Head Teachers
1. NAHT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence
to the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee Inquiry
into School Accountability.
2. The written evidence provides a broad overview
of our position on the main topics of the Inquiry and we would
welcome the opportunity to expand upon all of these points in
oral evidence sessions.
3. ACCOUNTABILITY
3.1 NAHT believes that it is right in principle
that schools should be held publicly accountable for their performance.
3.2 Schools should be accountable to parents,
pupils and local communities and should be able to demonstrate
to Government that they are providing the best possible education
to their pupils.
3.3 Schools should not be held accountable
for those factors that affect children's well-being, but over
which they have little or no control.
4. INSPECTION
4.1 NAHT believes that an independent inspectorate
is an appropriate mechanism for holding schools to account; however,
we question whether the current inspection system is entirely
fit for purpose.
4.2 We are concerned that Ofsted's independence
is being compromised by pressure from Government and that inspections
are overly focused on attainment data and arbitrary government
targets.
4.3 The impact of the inspection process
on individual schools is as variable as the quality of the individual
inspection teams.
4.4 When Inspectors arrive with well-informed
questions and open minds, take the time to scrutinize and discuss
a range of evidence and make a genuine effort to engage with the
context the school is operating in, the process can be very beneficial
and contribute to improvements in school performance. In these
circumstances the Inspection Team are often able to provide insightful
recommendations and/or suggestions that are welcomed by school
leaders and teachers alike.
4.5 However, when Inspectors arrive with
data-based decisions already made and are unwilling or unable
(due to time constraints) to engage with school-based data, with
little or no knowledge or understanding of the sector they are
inspecting yet an arrogant or high-handed demeanor, unsurprisingly
the process becomes less useful.
4.6 Sadly, everyone working in the school
community is aware of the variability in quality of Inspection
Teams and this awareness has a detrimental impact on the overall
impact of the inspection process as a whole.
4.7 The knowledge that inspection outcomes
now depend as much on the quality of the inspection team as the
quality of the school makes it increasingly risky for school leaders
to be innovative and/or creative.
4.8 The entire school community's confidence
is diminished by a poor inspection experience as is the esteem
with which the inspectorate is regarded.
5. QUALIFICATIONS
AND TRAINING
5.1 NAHT has concerns that many inspectors
lack both the qualifications and the breadth of experience required
for a post of such significance.
5.2 We regularly receive expressions of concern
from schools where an inspector has demonstrated by their questions
or responses that they have no understanding of a particular sector—or
indeed of the regulations that surround it.
6. INSPECTION
REPORTS
6.1 It is appropriate for inspection reports
to be placed in the public domain. However, the timetable for
publication is currently too short to allow disputes regarding
the accuracy or interpretation of inspection data to be adequately
resolved. It may also in some circumstances be appropriate for
some sections of inspection reports to remain confidential, whilst
other sections are in the public domain.
7. FREQUENCY
AND LENGTH
OF INSPECTION
7.1 It is not possible to answer this question
without first considering other relevant factors including the
role of self evaluation and the aims and purpose of the inspection.
7.2 If self-evaluation is sufficiently robust
and sufficiently valued by the inspectorate, then many inspections
will become effectively moderation procedures with recommendations.
7.3 The length and depth of these moderation
exercises will depend largely on the context of the particular
school and the complexity of the data in question.
7.4 However, if self evaluation is not trusted
by the inspectorate and they seek to "re-examine" every
aspect of a school's performance, then clearly a greater amount
of time is required for that to be done thoroughly.
7.5 Whilst NAHT believes that some aspects
of inspection could be flexible in response to the type of school
ie number of inspectors, frequency or length of inspection, the
nature of the inspection itself should not vary depending on the
performance of the school.
8. NOTICE OF
INSPECTION
8.1 NAHT is opposed to no-notice inspections.
8.2 The Pre-Inspection Briefing is a useful tool
for schools as it identifies those issues that the inspectors
will want to pursue and ensure that up-to-date evidence and/or
information on those given topics is immediately available in
an appropriate format for inspectors.
8.3 No notice or too-short notice prevents
this from happening and so either impedes the process or places
schools with particularly complex issues at a disadvantage.
8.4 NAHT believes that the headteacher should
be present for the inspection of their school. No notice inspections
reduce either the likelihood of the head being present or the
ability of headteachers to participate in activities that take
them away from the school site.
8.5 In considering the amount of notice
that may be appropriate, again that depends on the nature of the
inspection as outlined above.
9. SELF ASSESSMENT,
NATIONAL TESTS
AND CVA
9.1 School self-evaluation is of enormous
value in an inspection context and should be given significant
weight in the inspection report.
9.2 Massive amounts of time and energy are invested
in the production of school SEFs and it is extremely disheartening
for school leaders when that information is ignored or dismissed.
9.3 NAHT position on the use of national
test results is well known to the Committee and so we will not
re-rehearse the arguments here. Suffice to say that any data used
in an inspection must be viewed in context.
9.4 As stated in our response to the Focus
on Improvement Consultation. CVA and RAISEonline do not tell the
full story about a school's achievements, and should not be treated
as though they do. After all, if a national average is established,
some schools will, inevitably, be below it and some above. That
in itself tells you very little about the quality of provision
in an individual school.
9.5 The contribution of CVA and RAISEonline
data to inspections is limited by factors such as the complexity
of the data and difficulties schools have in checking its validity,
as well as recognised variations in the difficulty of different
subjects at GCSE.
10. "UNDERPERFORMING"
SCHOOLS AND
OFSTED CATEGORIES
10.1 Current systems claiming to identify
"underperforming" schools are based on arbitrary targets
and floor-levels and are inadequate in recognising the hard work
of staff and students or the broader achievements made by students
within those schools.
10.2 The placing of a school in a category has
no impact whatsoever in supporting improved performance, indeed
it hinders school progress by diminishing the regard and/or respect
that pupils and parents have for the school.
10.3 The additional support that accompanies
being put into a category is what can make a difference to the
school, but that could be put into place without the humiliation
and scape-goating of school leaders that accompanies categorisation.
11. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
PARTNERS
11.1 School experience of School Improvement
Partners has been as variable as their experience of Inspection
Teams.
11.2 Some indeed act as a critical friend, supporting
School Leaders in driving through useful improvement measures.
11.3 Others unfortunately take the role
of proxy inspectors for the Local Authority, placing unnecessary
stress on School Leaders and conducting their work in an atmosphere
of suspicion and mistrust.
12. COMPLAINTS
PROCEDURE
12.1 Members of NAHT find the procedure
for complaints about inspections woefully inadequate.
12.2 Many members are of the firm belief that
there is simply "no point" complaining as, having already
been through a negative experience there is nothing to be gained
from the process.
12.3 When they do make formal complaints
about their experiences, the response is usually reduced to a
simple assertion that as the investigator was not present they
cannot make a judgment.
13. SCHOOL REPORT
CARD
13.1 The School Report Card has the potential
to highlight to parents and other stakeholders a breadth of information
that is not easily available in one place at the present time.
13.2 However, its legitimacy and potential usefulness
will be completely undermined if a decision is made to provide
one universal grade for each school.
13.3 The Report Card will need to be seen
alongside the SEF and the School Development Plan in order for
it to have any usefulness in setting prioritized outcomes for
the school and whilst it may add information to the Ofsted Inspection
it can only sit alongside Ofsted reports as part of the information
landscape.
February 2009
| 
