Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by Ofsted to Derek Twigg MP
CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES SELECT COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY—OFSTED's IMPACT ON STRUGGLING
SCHOOLS
I was grateful for the opportunity to give evidence
to the Select Committee on Wednesday 6 May, as part of your inquiry
into School Accountability. During the session, you asked about
the number of inadequate schools we have inspected and their subsequent
improvement.
In the academic year 2007-08, 153 schools that required
special measures on their previous full inspection were re-inspected.
Of these, 91% are now satisfactory or better; 75% were judged
as satisfactory in their re-inspection and a further 16% were
judged as good. Almost all of the remaining schools were given
a Notice to Improve because, although they had made good progress
in some areas and demonstrated the capacity to improve, important
aspects of their work continue to be inadequate. Importantly,
leadership and management have improved enough for the schools
to be judged as capable of continued improvement without the frequency
of termly visits by HMI. The importance of improved leadership
and management is shown in the following diagram:
Figure 1
JUDGEMENTS OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT IN
SCHOOLS REMOVED FROM SPECIAL MEASURES IN 2007-08
As you will know, some inadequate schools are
given a Notice to Improve rather than being placed into special
measures. Six to eight months after inspection, schools given
a Notice to Improve receive a monitoring visit, followed by a
full inspection 12-16 months after being placed in the category
of concern. Most make at least satisfactory progress in the year
following their original inspection.
Early in 2008, Ofsted carried out a survey of
44 schools which had been monitored and/or re-inspected in the
year 2006-07. This survey found that:
— Schools valued the monitoring visits
highly and the prospect of early re-inspection galvanised action
to bring about improvements.
— Most schools changed their original priorities
to match more closely the areas inspection or monitoring identified
as requiring improvement. For example, a few primary schools focused
on improving attendance and almost all schools made improving
the quality of teaching and learning a central priority.
— This change in focus led to sharper judgements
about the quality of teaching and how to improve it, including
more refined lesson planning and a more carefully planned programme
of professional development. This more rigorous approach also
led on occasions to a quicker move to staff capability proceedings
where considered necessary.
The result of this can be seen in the inspection
outcomes. During 2007-08, 245 schools which had been given a Notice
to Improve in 2006-07 were re-inspected. Of these, nine in ten
were now at least satisfactory overall and 40 (16%) of these were
judged good schools. However, a very small minority had declined
and were made subject to special measures. This usually relates
to changes of leadership which have not had the impact that was
anticipated, and also to situations where leaders have been absent
from the school.
Another issue to take into account is the length
of time that schools spend in special measures; this varies, but
is generally far less than was the case 10 years ago. The time
in special measures has continued to decline since the start of
the new inspection framework, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME SPENT IN SPECIAL MEASURES,
BASED ON SCHOOLS REMOVED FROM SPECIAL MEASURES IN EACH ACADEMIC
YEAR
| Primary schools
| Secondary schools |
| 1997-98 |
2007-08 | 1997-98
| 2007-08 |
Total number of schools removed (excluding those schools that closed while in a category)
| 64 | 120 | 14
| 27 |
Average number of days spent in special measures
| 776 | 550 | 903
| 588 |
Average number of weeks spent in special measures
| 111 | 79 | 129
| 84 |
Average number of months spent in special measures
| 26 | 18 | 30
| 20 |
Based on 1 September to 31 August.
| | | |
|
| |
| | |
As you know, Ofsted also makes monitoring visits to a small
proportion of schools which, although satisfactory overall, have
some weaknesses; we intend to increase the proportion of schools
visited in this way in the new framework for inspecting maintained
schools from September 2009. We evaluated the existing process
of monitoring visits in 2008 and discussed the procedures in extended
interviews with a selection of headteachers in these schools.
This work showed that almost all schools regarded a "satisfactory"
judgement from Ofsted as a "wake up call", with almost
half responding quickly by restructuring their leadership in order
to achieve greater impact.
These monitoring visits were favourably received by all schools.
They were variously described as very constructive, professional
and developmental. A significant strength was the quality of dialogue
with the lead inspector. They were seen as particularly helpful
if they took place around one full year after the original inspection.
Schools indicated that the major catalyst for change remains the
inspection judgement (of satisfactory) but that the monitoring
visit was helpful in checking progress on the key recommendations.
This was especially true in some schools where support from the
local authority was felt to be limited after the inspection.
Christine Gilbert
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
June 2009
| 
