Examination of Witnesses (Question 260-264)
ANNA FAZACKERLEY,
PROFESSOR JOHN
MACBEATH
AND ANASTASIA
DE WAAL
29 APRIL 2009
Q260 Mr Chaytor: But what
is your assessment overall of the criteria that Ofsted are using
to determine the schools that need to improve?
Clare Collins: Are you asking
whether the Ofsted criteria are sound?
Mr Chaytor: Yes.
Clare Collins: There was a survey
of governors' views in the TES about a month ago. One question
was whether they were happy with the Ofsted view of their school,
and there was an 85% positive response. So, in essence, the answer
is yes.
Q261 Mr Chaytor: Are there
ways in which, when a school is identified for a school improvement
process, that is either too punitive or too lenient? What are
the issues around how you tackle this? Is naming and shaming the
right way forward, or is a softly, softly approach more effective?
David Butler: I think that it
is, to some extent, the concept of a little bit of shock, horror.
We have heard Clare say that she has seen one or two peculiar
shocks in her own local authority. I think that even if you take
that across all schools, if they are presented with a situation
where their school has been deemed to require some form of improvement,
you are going to get the inward drawing of breath, because probably
they thought everything was fine. If you then look at the other
side of that, I believe that parents will welcome the fact that
these issues have been identified, because it then opens up a
number of doors whereby other measures can be put in to help to
return that school to the level of performance that everybody
would want. I think that you have got these two stages.
Clare Collins: Naming and shaming
is a really tricky issue, but sadly, the shock tactics work. There
is an element of, "Oh, my God, we'll put all the resources
in and we'll make something happen." The danger is that you
will go for quick fixes and not for longer-term sustainable system
change. The real issue, though, is that a lot of parents out there
know that the school is not great, but they don't have a choice—they
don't have a voice either. The least advantaged communities don't
have the power, the voice or the mechanisms, while the leafy suburbs
will shout and scream until something is done. It is absolutely
vital that there is a protective mechanism out there to make sure
that things happen for those schools, because these are the children
who need the most help.
David Butler: I was just going
to add to that. I think that is why we put in our submission the
need to ensure that parents understand the point at which they
can trigger a concern, for example to Ofsted. We are even suggesting
that perhaps Ofsted could do a little bit more to make it clear
among parents what that process is so that they can actually voice
their opinion. As Clare said, and I believe even Ofsted would
agree, if they come in and find something—if they can dig—they
often find that parents were aware of this in advance, and that
is what we want to try and get to. Can we actually have that earlier
intervention, because that is what we want? If you are going to
have longer inspection periods, you do not want the thing to fall
off the end of a cliff in the middle. You want them to be able
to jump in and make sure we can do something and return the effectiveness
as soon as possible.
Chairman: An effective empowerment of
parents.
Q262 Mr Chaytor: That was
my final question really. Is there more that could be done once
the process has started to engage parents in the whole school
improvement process?
David Butler: The fairly simple
answer to that has to be yes, but the way that there is now a
trend towards opening to the doors for parents to be able to flag
concerns is really effective in its own right. We now have schools
wanting to engage with their parent body much more, and our research
tells us that there is more and more of that going on. That is
to be encouraged and promoted, because they can become partners
in that process.
Clare Collins: Again, building
on where I opened about strengthening the system, you have now
got the school's own self-evaluation, you have the school improvement
validating that on at least an annual basis, and you have Ofsted
coming in every three years, and that is coupled with shed loads
of increasingly good-quality data that identify small groups of
children, types of groups and so on. There are fewer and fewer
hiding places for schools. Now if that is all captured on the
school report card in a meaningful way, and Ofsted propose to
risk assess using the school report card data, I think that we
are going to get that.
Q263 Fiona Mactaggart: I am
still interested in the difference between the presentation of
a school and the reality for some of the participants in it. I
am anxious that none of the things that we have come up with identify
ways through that clearly enough, because a school can be a great
school for lots of children, but not for some of the children.
How, in an accountability system, can we surface that issue, which
is really difficult, but absolutely essential?
Deborah Ishihara: One way that
we could do that would be to ask Ofsted, when it comes in, to
drill down to a greater depth. If the school has a particular
profile and certain sorts of vulnerable children—Travellers,
for example—and takes a sample of various groups of children,
and then talks to the parents and child and sees how that child's
needs are or are not being met by the school, it would use that
level of drilled-down data to produce a comment on its reports.
That would be one way, instead of headline figures, to try and
actually drill-down to a great depth.
Clare Collins: I would like to
say that Ofsted is in my primary school at the moment. The pre-inspection
briefing report identified a small group of children in the very
way that you are talking about. It won't talk to the parents,
but it will, I imagine, talk to the children, because they are
identified as a group that is perhaps not making the progress
that it should be making. A lot of this is down to Ofsted.
David Butler: I am conscious that
you have had to compress the session. I merely want to say, before
you bring it to a close, that if there are additional questions
that the Committee is interested in us addressing—
Chairman: David, I always finish by saying
this is a get-to-know-you session and we will continue the relationship
until we write the report.
David Butler: I am very happy
to do that.
Chairman: One word from Graham before
we finish.
Q264 Mr Stuart: Do your groups
think that accountability would be improved by academies and,
as with the other day's Conservative Front-Bench proposal, primary
academies? Do you think freedom from local authority control and
greater independence is actually going to improve accountability?
Yes or no is all we have time for.
Deborah Ishihara: No, we don't
think that is a good idea, unless academies are brought under
the same rules of accountability as other maintained schools.
They have quite a lot of freedom now to make their own rules now,
so it is harder to hold them to account. We often get calls along
the lines that indicate poor practice is going on. They are allowed
to make their own rules. In theory, that should be fine, because
they are accountable to the Secretary of State, but in fact sometimes
the rules they make don't take into account the rules of natural
justice and fairness. It is much easier if everybody has to follow
the same rules.
Chairman: Clare, do you agree with that?
Clare Collins: The National Governors
Association has huge issues about the accountability of academies.
I am sitting on a transition body for a school that is going from
a community school into an academy and it is a complete mystery
to me, so no.
David Butler: Deborah is absolutely
right. We should have a common system.
Chairman: Well, Andrew Adonis and Michael
Gove might disagree with that, but we shall see. Thank you, everyone.
| 
