Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by Ofsted to Fiona Mactaggart MP
CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES SELECT COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY—OFSTED's PROCEDURES FOR
HANDLING COMPLAINTS ABOUT INSPECTIONS
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 raised two
connected, but separate, queries. The first queried the number
of occasions when, following a complaint from an inspected school,
Ofsted has changed its inspection judgements. The second specifically
concerned a complaint about the inspection of Wexham School in
your constituency and how Ofsted processes such complaints.
OFSTED CHANGING
JUDGEMENTS FOLLOWING
COMPLAINTS ABOUT
INSPECTION
Of the 7,866 maintained school inspections carried
out in the academic year 2007-08, Ofsted received 304 complaints
about 248 inspections. This represents a complaint in 4% of inspections
but, allowing for the fact that some inspections had more than
one complaint, only about 3% of inspections led to a complaint.
Of the 278 complaints responded to in the academic
year 2007-08 (including those originally received in 2006-07),
just over 30% were upheld to some extent. 10 (3.6%) were upheld
fully and 75 (27%) were partially upheld. The remaining 69.4%
complaints were not upheld.
A complaint can cover several aspects of the
inspection process. 158 complaints (24% of all complaints) were
about the validity of judgements as an aspect of the complaint.
Of these, 19 (12%) were upheld and 139 (88%) were not upheld.
COMPLAINT ABOUT
INSPECTION OF
WEXHAM SCHOOL
Following our discussion, I have looked into
our handling of the complaint from Wexham School, particularly
in relation to the time which elapsed during the different phases
of the complaints process.
Wexham School was inspected on 9 and 10 December
2008. Our procedures require that, following the completion of
our internal quality assurance process and a factual accuracy
check by the school, a final version of the report is sent to
the school within three weeks of the end of the inspection. The
school is allowed five days to distribute the report to parents
and carers and thereafter it is published on the Ofsted website.
The report on Wexham School was published on 12 January 2009 and,
allowing for the Christmas and New Year public holidays, this
was within the required timescale.
The school submitted a formal complaint about
the inspection to Prospects Learning Services, our regional inspection
provider, on 10 February 2009. Ofsted requires that complaints
submitted within 30 calendar days of the publication of the report
should be considered and, consequently, Prospects Learning Services
undertook an investigation of the complaint. Their response was
sent to the school on 5 March 2009, which is within the 20 working
day target period set by Ofsted.
Where complainants are not satisfied with the
response to their complaint they may submit a request for an internal
review by Ofsted within one month of receiving the initial response.
Wexham School requested an internal review on the 6 April 2009.
This was carried out by Sheila Brown, Regional Director for the
South Region on behalf of Peter Duffy, Deputy Director, Corporate
Services, and was sent to the school on 7 May 2009. Allowing for
the Easter and May Day public holidays, this was within the 20
working days in which we aim to complete internal reviews.
I acknowledge that a considerable period of
time passed between the inspection and the completion of the internal
review, but the complaint was dealt with within our agreed timescales.
It is entirely appropriate that the school wished to consider
carefully the framing of its initial complaint and subsequent
request for an internal review, but it is clear that this contributed
to the time taken.
More generally, I understand your concern that
our handling of complaints should be fair, objective and rigorous.
These are key elements in the principles which are set out in
the Ofsted publication Complaints procedure: raising concerns
and making complaints about Ofsted (December 2008). Internal
reviews are completed by senior managers in Ofsted and involve
careful scrutiny of the way in which complaints have been handled.
On the very few occasions when inspections do not meet the high
standards which Ofsted expects, we acknowledge this openly and
apologise that it has occurred. We are determined to learn from
our mistakes and, where necessary, issue further guidance or arrange
additional support and training for individual inspectors.
While I am confident that our complaints procedures
are rigorous and objective, I agree that it is important that
they are subject to independent and external scrutiny. In the
hearing on 6 May, I referred to the new Ofsted Adjudicator Service
which is provided by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution,
who have substantial experience of dispute resolution in the public
sector. A complainant who is dissatisfied with the outcome of
an internal review can refer the matter to the adjudication service.
The scope of the adjudication covers the behaviour of inspectors,
the implementation of inspection procedures, the management of
the complaint and the quality of the response. I know from our
experience of both the newly appointed and previous adjudicator,
that this process is independent and rigorous. The recommendations
of adjudicators are occasionally challenging for Ofsted, but they
are always considered carefully and, in the great majority of
cases, accepted fully and incorporated within our procedures and
guidance to inspectors.
While there are many strengths to our handling
of complaints, I am determined that we should adapt a more streamlined
approach, which avoids the lengthy timescales evident in the Wexham
complaint. In 2008 Ofsted commissioned an independent review of
its complaints procedures and we are now piloting new arrangements
which will be fully implemented later in the year. We are proposing
a rapid initial assessment of each complaint, distinguishing clearly
between concerns about the conduct of inspectors and the validity
of the inspection judgements. Wherever possible we will attempt
to resolve the complaint through informal resolution involving
direct contact with the complainant. Where this is not possible,
it is anticipated that there will be a formal investigation which
is similar to what occurs in our present arrangements. However,
this will be subject to critical scrutiny by an independent panel
of inspectors who will test the conclusions of the investigation
against the inspection evidence and the views of the complainant.
This independent scrutiny will, in effect, embed the internal
review process within the initial investigation and avoid the
lengthy timescales experienced in the case of Wexham School.
I am grateful to you for raising these matters
and I hope you are reassured by my response to the issues that
you have raised. Please do come back to me if you would like further
detail about our general approach or, indeed, Wexham School.
Christine Gilbert
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
June 2009
| 
