Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
166-198)
Lesley Davies, Professor Nick Foskett, Professor
Chris Husbands and Asha Khemka OBE
24 November 2010
Q166 Chair: Good morning. Welcome
to you all, and thank you very much for coming this morning to
give evidence to the Education Committee on the role and performance
of Ofsted. In our meetings, we tend to be as informal as we can
be in the circumstances, and if you are all happy for us to use
your first names, we will do so. Is Ofsted fit for purpose, Nick?
Professor Foskett: That is a blunt
opening question. The role of Ofsted and the need for it have
changed substantially over the years. My own perspective is that
the role that it valuably fulfilled 10, 12 or 15 years ago has
changed substantially. In times of greater professionalism within
the educational world that it serves and of tighter resources—there
is a real question about the resources that go into Ofsted and
about their effectiveness in changing practice in both school
and initial teacher education arenas—I would say that, taking
the big question, it is probably not fit for purpose at the moment.
Q167 Chair: You have mentioned
resources and the amount being spent. Is it not fit for purpose
because it is too expensive?
Professor Foskett: You have to
question whether resources channelled into Ofsted might be resources
that would be better channelled directly into the education service
itself to raise standards in schools and universities.
Q168 Chair: Excellent. Is Ofsted
fit for purpose and is it value for money, Lesley?
Lesley Davies: I would have to
agree. Over the past few days, I have been looking at evidence
of the operation, as you would expect, because I am an ex-inspector.
Looking at the value for money of reports, and the inconsistency,
certainly in the further education sector, of some of the judgments
made, as well as the contracting-out arrangements, I would suggest
that value for money needs to be looked at within the inspection
service at the moment.
Q169 Chair: But is that more because
of quality, rather than because Ofsted is bloated or that too
much money is being spent on the regulatory role as opposed to
the front line?
Lesley Davies: My view is that
what needs to be looked at is the structure of how Ofsted carries
out its operation. Within that, you need to look at the remit
it is covering. It has been given more and more to do—safeguarding,
for instance. We all see safeguarding as important, but whether
the balance is right in the inspectorate on the resources allocated
is questionable.
Q170 Chair: Thank you. Those are
good points, which I am sure we will return to later. Asha?
Asha Khemka: My view is very similar.
In particular, I would focus on whether Ofsted is fit for purpose
now, which is questionable. The time has come when there is a
need to overhaul the inspection system in colleges. At the moment,
there is a lot of duplication and far too much emphasis on qualification
success rates, which creates a lot of anxiety and duplication
of effort. If that is the focus of Ofsted inspection, inspectors
do not need to be in colleges; they can do a desk exercise and
make their judgment. We need to look at whether the common inspection
framework is providing for our students, our employers, our communities
and the taxpayer the information that they need and at whether
that is value for money. We are questioning that at the moment,
saying, "No, it is not value for money." Having said
that, however, particularly over the past four or five years we
have seen a reduction in the number of inspections, because inspectors
very much use a risk-based approach. Still, my personal experience
of inspectors having been in colleges has been very different,
in that I have not seen a lot of bureaucracy or demands for data
and other things. However, my colleagues in the sector have had
different experiences. So, there is inconsistency and Ofsted's
approach is too burdensome, although the number of inspections
has reduced. Moving forward, outstanding colleges and schools
are not going to be inspected, which is a move in the right direction.
However, there is a need to overhaul the system.
Q171 Chair: Thank you, Asha. Chris?
Professor Husbands: Ofsted is
a many-headed hydra. There are a number of distinctions that you
might want to draw. One is the work of Ofsted in inspecting individual
schools and colleges, and another is the work of Ofsted in generating
national survey reports. There are some tensions between the ways
the organisation goes about those two things. It is right to say
that there is less inspection than there was. One consequence
of outstanding schools and colleges not being inspected is that
we will know considerably less about what is happening in the
best parts of the system than we have known over the past 15 years.
Equally, because schools and colleges graded 4 are not incorporated
in survey reports, those reports tend to give a slightly rosier
picture of the system as a whole than they might otherwise give.
Both those points are reflections of an organisation that is trying
simultaneously to report on the quality of individual institutions—which
is possibly a valid thing to have a national agency doing—and
to generate knowledge about the system as a whole. There are tensions
between those, so at some point it would be sensible to have a
serious look at that.
Chair: Yes. As the
session goes on, we can tease out the thoughts on the purposes.
When I say "fit for purpose", it is a bit like when
we investigated qualifications and the testing. I think that there
are 23 different purposes—you might be able to marry one
or two in a test, but you are unlikely to deliver 23. The same
points could be made about Ofsted.
Q172 Bill Esterson: One of the
things that we have been discussing is what the role of inspections
should be. I am interested in whether you think that Ofsted should
primarily be a force for improvement or for regulation, or what
the balance might be between those, for both schools and colleges?
Asha Khemka: The purpose of any
inspection should be to give objective judgment, for the choice
for students, employers, parents and taxpayers. The inspection
process must be fair, consistent and rigorous. If we bring in
the other aspect, which is to do with improvement and regulation,
the focus dilutes. My view is that Ofsted's purpose should be
regulation. However, regulation should be agreed in conjunction
with colleges. I am particularly focusing on colleges because
that is the area I come from and what the Association of Colleges
also represents. Coming back to my point, the sector has matured—it
has improved its success rates, its teaching and its learning.
Inspection has definitely provided an element to drive up standards.
Ofsted is a recognised brand, and colleges value some sort of
external scrutiny in order to come to a particular judgment. There
is also an opportunity now to develop the sector itself by bringing
in a new model that is very much based on the higher education
one, with colleges working with Ofsted and agreeing on a toolkit
for self-assessment. Ofsted would train individual people to become
reviewers. It would then be in a position to use that information
from self-assessment to make its judgment—risk-based—on
which institutions should be inspected. That gives the colleges
the chance to develop their own capacity, but, at the same time,
keep the rhythm.
Lesley Davies: Can I come in on
what it should be? An inspection service can and should only ever
be a mirror that is held up to an organisation. The only entity
that can improve an organisation is that organisation itself—no
inspectorate or external entity can do that. You can hold the
mirror up, but it is up to the senior management team to go away
and look at their areas of weakness. To be quite honest, if you
are holding up a mirror that they do not recognise, there is something
wrong within the establishment, because it should already know
where it needs to improve. Any external scrutiny should have an
element that reflects what needs to be put right—not that
just says what is wrong. In that, the only people who can put
that right are the school or the college. There needs to be some
sense that you are not just ticking boxes. Some parts of Ofsted's
remit that I do not know quite so well—in the children's
care area—are more about regulation so there is a mix of
compliance and judgments—Ofsted there is a huge machine,
which has to do more than one thing in different parts of the
sector.
Professor Foskett: It is a balance
that changes over time. Inevitably, the inspection system will
have an element of both regulation and improvement. If you are
focusing on regulation, it starts on the presumption that there
is a great deal wanting in the system, in terms of meeting the
minimum criteria and standards that the system is setting. I am
not clear that that is the situation overall, although it is in
pockets. The primary purpose has to be about improvement in the
context of an educational philosophy of continuous improvement
and striving for raising standards, whatever the standards of
achievement in schools, colleges or ITE. I think it has to do
both, but in the current context it has to be principally about
improvement—and improvement in close collaboration and partnership
with the educational institutions themselves and the professionals
who know the business on a day-to-day basis.
Professor Husbands: If you look
at the experience of the past 20 years, time after time, when
Ofsted has gone in with a new remit—originally in schools
they needed to do teacher training, and now they do children and
services—you will see that that has provided, through its
inspection framework, a toolkit that is then used, as the institutions
prepare for and react to inspection, which has the effect of driving
up standards. I am absolutely sure that that has happened and
think that it is very difficult to mount a counter-argument against
that. What that does, quite successfully, is put in a regulatory
floor. The question for Ofsted is: once you have that embedded
in your system—which I think it pretty well is across much
of the system now—where does inspection go? That is a question
about different sorts of conversations in institutions about different
sorts of frameworks. I expect we will explore some of those later.
Q173 Bill Esterson: Can I return
to Lesley's point about holding up a mirror? To what extent is
it about expecting leaders in schools and colleges to respond
to what is in the mirror, and to what extent is it about advice?
Lesley Davies: It is very difficult,
because you are going into consultancy if you start giving advice
on how to do something. Who knows the school or the college better
than the school or college leaders? It is like any business. You
can get advice separately, but the mirror that tells you, "These
are the areas that you are very good at and these are the areas
that you need to improve," provides, and has provided, a
blueprint for schools and colleges. The big test is: do they then
rise to that challenge and improve their schools and colleges.
No sort of external regime—whether they are consultants
or an inspectorate—can do that for them unless you take
special measures to impose a different regime. If it is just tick-box
regulation, which is what it is in some areas, we would want to
retain, certainly for our colleges, valuable external scrutiny,
however it is delivered—whether it is through a peer assessment,
which Asha talked about, or through an inspection service—which
would also show that you are doing well and celebrate it. We don't
do a lot of celebrating what we are doing very well in this new
era of risk assessment. We have lost the celebration of good practice.
But where things need to be put right, a clear map is provided
of what needs to be done in the areas that need to be focused
on.
Q174 Bill Esterson: Okay. Some
16% of the NAHT who responded to a survey said that Ofsted had
helped their school improve, the implication being that 84% did
not agree. Do you think that Ofsted is making a positive difference
to standards? We cover schools, initial teacher training and further
education.
Professor Foskett: There is a
balance sheet in there between what it contributes and what it
handicaps. Picking up on Chris's view, I don't think there is
any doubt at all that there is a net beneficial effect of the
inspection process. It has contributed to the raising of standards
and achievements, because it has pushed institutions towards reflection
and thinking about the ways in which they can improve standards,
and it has given them some benchmarks in which to operate. There
is also a downside. Where the perspective is one of policing and
the negative presence of Ofsted within the school, that can have
downward pressure. The question we need to ask is whether there
could be even faster rates of improvement by a different method
of inspection, judgment and regime to raise standards.
Q175 Bill Esterson: What do you
think that different method is?
Professor Foskett: I think it
is about engaging the professionals in the schools in a more thoughtful
and creative way. It is a characteristic of educationalists at
all levels—or at least of educational leaders at all levels—that
they are involved in self-reflection and continuously looking
for ways to improve. That is the culture of the educational arena
in which we operate. The problem with Ofsted is that it provides
a straitjacket on that, which does not encourage lateral thinking
and creativity in different modes that don't quite match the Ofsted
way of working. Ofsted, while raising standards, pigeonholes and
constrains development in other ways.
Professor Husbands: There is the
potential to mischaracterise this. What Ofsted has been absolutely
brilliant at is raising the floor and potentially lowering the
ceiling. What the inspection framework provides is, to some extent,
a compliance-based structure. Given that there were, and in many
cases still are, places where raising the floor is absolutely
what you need to do when you are addressing serious underperformance,
that is performing a valuable function. The question is, when
you are looking, and when the White Paper is going to look, towards
a self-sustaining school-led education system, what is the nature
of the relationship of an inspectorate to really push at the top
end and to keep stretching and raising standards of performance?
I think that probably, going back, the idea of holding the mirror
up is absolutely critical, because even the best of us, actually,
needs somebody from outside to say there are other things you
can think about here.
Q176 Bill Esterson: I thought
for a minute that you were going to suggest different processes
within Ofsted for different schools.
Professor Husbands: To some extent,
we are already there. We are going, as it is, with different inspection
timetables, and teams are likely to be constructed differently.
There are short inspections and long inspections, so we have already
gone a fairly long way down that road. I would say that I think
a common tool, which may not necessarily be the same as a common
framework, is pretty critical, because otherwise you run up against
all sorts of boundary issues that become counter-productive in
practice.
Asha Khemka: Inspection, in my
view, itself does not improve standards. However, inspections
being a trigger, a driver, an element, which have encouraged improving
standards—that is not out of order. However, within that
framework, we need to look at why there are differences; why there
are people who think they add value and people who think they
don't add value, or that they don't make improvements, because
there are very varying practices. The professional judgment made
by inspectors is not consistent. Then there are tick-box exercises.
Then there is too much demand and the inspection process is burdensome,
creates stress and doesn't really result in improvement. Where
there are people who are fully framed, who are experienced and
use their professional judgment in that contextual environment,
rightly, then it does result in improvement. One example that
I want to bring to your attention is where there is some anxiety
in colleges about a level playing field. In schools, the success
rates are judged in a very different way to colleges. What is
the difference? Let me give you an example. In schools, success
is judged based on how many students actually take the examination
or re-sit it with an awarding body and then achieve the qualification.
So that is the measure. In colleges, the measure is how many achieve
the qualification against how many actually enrolled on courses
in the first place. That results in a very different type of success
rate. One example we have seen recently is one particular school,
where a sixth form rated outstanding on a success rate. If the
college measure was used, that would be inadequate rather than
outstanding. So this particular area needs to be looked at. I
am not advocating making systems more complicated, or having different
systems, but looking at something that is simpler, parallel and
so on. Coming back to your question, Ofsted has played a part.
Inspection does play a part in raising standards.
Lesley Davies: I will also pick
up on the simplification. From memory, there are about 247 questions
that an inspector is expected to answer in some way, shape or
form. That is far too many and is burdensome on the inspectorate.
How do they make the decision about which ones they are going
to ask? There is an issue around frameworks. You mentioned the
common framework. If you think about learners—not the institutions
and not the inspectorate—we want to inform learners about
the best place they can go to get the education and training they
want. If they cannot manoeuvre their way around these reports
easily, or understand exactly what Asha says about comparing success
rates—how will I do if I join the college on engineering
and what's my chance of success if I join the sixth form in a
school in my area?—then why are we doing this as well? There
is a dual role: one to improve and another to inform potential
students. To do that, we need either a common framework that's
applied but contextualised, so you apply it in different ways
to different parts of the sector, or we need, as Chris rightly
said, a tool kit. At the moment, it is highly complex. We have
different frameworks applying to the same age group. If you are
in a school in the sixth form it is a different framework that
looks at "Are you happy?" and "Do you turn up on
time?" There is also Asha's point about, "Do you pass
the exam you have been entered for?", forgetting those who
have already left. If you're in a college it's far more about
outcomes and strategic leadership. It's a completely different
way of looking at the same age group. I suggest that if you're
17, you don't care about the framework, you just want to know
where you need to go to get what you want out of that education
system.
Q177 Bill Esterson: If I could
briefly mention initial teacher training. The question is whether
the balance is right between regulation and development.
Professor Husbands: The framework
has shifted. The frameworks in force in the late 1990s and through
to 2008 had a very heavy regulatory edge. In the 2008-11 framework,
Ofsted shifted the focus so that the starting point was providers'
self-evaluation. One difficulty with that was that it then structured
the framework for self-evaluation so precisely that that in itself
became a regulatory tool. My answer is that we are moving in the
right direction, but struggling to translate that into a practical
expression of the aspiration.
Professor Foskett: That is compounded
by the intensity and frequency with which that inspection occurs.
There is a time frame over which evolution and development improvement
takes place, and the frequency of inspection is rather shorter
than that time frame for improvement. So the notion that you're
inspected every three or four years is far too intense to see
the sort of developments that reflection can bring about.
Q178 Tessa Munt: I want to concentrate
on the idea of a single inspectorate. In some of the answers you've
given to Bill, you have answered some of the questions I was to
ask. I would like to ask whether a single inspectorate offers
any benefits in terms of regulation development of teacher training
provision. Does it help identify good practice and spread that
about?
Lesley Davies: We could look at
the make-up; whether you divide inspectorates and inspection activity,
or whether it's in one entity. But I think that the structure,
however, is less important than getting the framework right—having
the inspectors who are trained in their area and know what they
are doing and therefore the outcomes. You can have one large organisation—many
businesses have business units that are run perfectly well—or
you can have one big organisation that can't cope with the span
of its business. If you look at Ofsted, a year ago we did have
separate areas—directorates—that looked at FE colleges.
There was a strong focus on the FE sector, which is our sector
and we're passionate about it, and other areas. The organisation
restructured about a year ago and lost that directorate and now
we have directorates that look at development for different areas.
I can't make the judgment whether that has improved or hindered
the inspection process, but we want to look for a simplified inspection
that is fair for all learners and organisations; that we can compare
like with like for age groups, for adults, young people and children;
that gives a good blueprint for improvement; and that is cost-effective
and value for money. Whether that is within one inspectorate or
many, you could go either way. Far more important, I think, are
the basic principles to get the inspection service right. Asha
mentioned a new world. We've come a long way in the past 20 years
with management information. As a world, we now have the internet,
but inspections still basically use the same tools. We have so
much management information: we have framework for excellence,
which gives a range of indicators, and surveys go out every year
for FE colleges, surveying employer views and learner views. Colleges
such as Asha's college will carry out at least three surveys a
year on their learners and employers, and Ofsted's new methodology
does it again. Why? Why are we not looking at the use of good
management information to inform and therefore, reduce the burden
of external inspection—to get it right? That, for me, is
far more important than whether it is in one inspectorate or many.
Q179 Chair: Does anyone else want
to come in on that?
Professor Foskett: The organisational
arrangements, as Lesley has said, are less important than what
happens on the ground. A particular issue that ITE, or education
departments in universities face, is the burden of being inspected
and audited by more than one organisation—so, they would
have an Ofsted inspection, but they would have a QAA audit as
well. They operate on quite different principles and have different
intensities and modus operandi. That makes life very difficult
for education departments which have that experience. The key
issue is that whatever structure you have, it has to be simple,
clear and comprehensible to those who are engaged in it, and not
over-burdensome. The burden detracts hugely from the day-to-day
operation of doing the job of educating and working with students.
Q180 Chair: On the structural
issue, would you like Ofsted to take over the QAA? Do you want
everyone under one inspectorate?
Asha Khemka: On higher education,
it is not really an inspectorate, because the QAA involves a different
arrangement. We would advocate that a similar model is developed—this
is what I talked about earlier—where Ofsted is involved
and works with colleges to develop that toolkit and train the
reviewers, so there is consistency, rigour, and these reviewers
then do peer review and validate self-assessment reports, because
there is enough maturity in the sector to produce evaluative judgment-based,
accurate self-assessment reports.
Q181 Chair: Do you want that to
fit in more? Would you like FE to be viewed as one with higher
education, in a different way? Or, do you want consistency with
school inspection, which as you say, often deals with the same
age groups—not entirely, but to an extent?
Professor Foskett: The QAA operates
in a much more collaborative and participative way. My view is
that it is much more effective because of that; it engages the
academic staff by doing that.
Professor Husbands: I am sorry
to interrupt, because I know that Tessa wanted to ask another
question. There are some structural issues here. There's a scale
issue, which might make it difficult to operate the school inspection
system in the same way that we operate the QAA. It is just the
sheer number. Ofsted has increasingly begun to deploy head teachers
and senior leaders as part of inspection teams, but it is difficult
to work out how you could do that on a sufficient scale to transform
the model. So, there are some issues around fitness for purpose.I'm
less worried about governance structures and inspectorates than
I am about the quality of the people who are doing the work. If
we go back to Dr Arnold and the establishment of HMI, you get
the notion that the concept was informed connoisseurship. Inspections
were being undertaken by people who had a deep understanding of
the processes they were inspecting, and there was huge respect
from the profession for inspectors.
Asha Khemka: I slightly disagree
with the last comment about governance. It's very important to
keep the focus on the reports of different aspects of the inspection
process, or different sectors of that process. A very good example
now is the annual report, which has just come out; it doesn't
really adequately focus on further education. If you look at the
number of young people, double the number of 16 to 18-year-olds
are educated in colleges compared to schools—two thirds
of A-level students are educated in colleges compared with schools,
and so on. That governance and looking at how information is reported
for public consumption is equally important.
Q182 Chair: We are going to move
on to the quality of inspectors. Do the senior staff and leadership
of Ofsted feel that they have the skills to carry out and lead
the various roles? Are they properly deployed? Have you insights
into whether they are?
Professor Foskett: My observations
are that those at the senior level have credible backgrounds that
gives them professional standing. They are viewed as operating
in an effective and positive way. It is the quality of the actual
inspectors on the ground in the institutions where there are most
concerns.
Q183 Ian Mearns: This is a key
question. We have a bit of a debate going on about the outcomes
that Ofsted is finding as opposed to people's opinions of our
policy makers, particularly with regard to initial teacher training.
Yesterday's Ofsted report told us that initial teacher training
is outstanding in half of higher education institutions, but only
in about a quarter of school settings. Does Ofsted have the breadth
of experience to inspect initial teacher training properly at
that level?
Professor Husbands: Shall I answer
that as it falls directly within my area of expertise? I shall
give one bit of background first. In respect of initial teacher
training, Ofsted is effectively always on contract to the TDA,
which is required to take quality into account when making allocations
and places, and to use Ofsted and other data in relation to that.
It has a particular relationship, which is right, and I accept
that as a finding. The evidential base is there, and you are
absolutely right that that is slightly at odds with the direction
of policy, but just as Ofsted holds up a mirror, it holds up a
mirror to policy making as well as practice.
Q184 Pat Glass: We have heard
a lot of evidence in Committee about the inconsistency and lack
of quality and expertise in inspectors and areas such as early
years, SEN and behaviour. What are your views about the quality
and consistency of Ofsted inspectors, particularly in relation
to initial teacher training and further education? Since they
took over from the adult learning inspectorate, has that been
a force for good or otherwise?
Asha Khemka: I will focus on further
education. The consistency of inspectors varies, as I have said.
Full-time inspectors—HMIs—have a lot of experience
of inspections and have known the sector for a long time. When
they go to colleges, they are not ticking boxes. They are using
their professional judgment to make the judgments contextually,
depending on the circumstances. However, that practice is not
consistent across the board. A lot of my colleagues have reported
that there are inspectors who go through the tick-box exercise.
Q185 Chair: For clarity's sake,
that is not HMIs—the feeling across the board is that HMIs
are of pretty high standard. It is the additional inspectors.
Asha Khemka: In general, yes.
Some additional inspectors are very professional and very good,
so it would not be right to say that regional inspectors do not
do their jobs well, because they bring in the sector expertise.
They are practitioners, and they understand the curriculum areas
and so on. However, there has been inconsistency in their practice
and approach. The problem that we have is when there are too many
inspections. When the services are being outsourced in different
regions for different people to carry out the inspections, they
are not going through the same type of rigour or type of training.
That really needs to be looked at. The type of inspectors and
professional delivery build confidence in colleges about their
value. Once we review the system and the way in which inspections
take place, there will be an opportunity to save costs and to
bring consistency by having a smaller inspection team as a result
of what we are about to do. Yes, there is inconsistency, but in
further education overall, I would say that people have come to
expect that they know their area and understand the further education
sector. By and large, they do a good job.
Q186 Pat Glass: Can I add to that
question? You can answer it as we go along, because it has come
up from what Asha has said. We have also heard lots of evidence
that, with HMI leading the inspection, you get better consistency,
better outcomes all round, a better picture of the institution,
and where you get rogue inspectors the HMI calls them into line.
Q187 Chair: For Hansard's
record, all four of you nodded in agreement.
Lesley Davies: It is an issue
of value for money. Ofsted used three outsourced inspection service
providers, which are regional. They carry out and plan the inspections
and train the associate inspectors separately. They are separate
organisations, so when you talk about consistency, it is very
difficult to ensure a consistent national picture when you have
three separate organisations under contract to deliver. They also
then produce and submit the reports. We have surveyed our colleges,
and some of the principals I have spoken to have said, "The
inspector might as well have just rung me and given me my grade
over the phone, because it was just on data. They didn't look
at anything else. They wouldn't listen." Others have said,
"They didn't know what they were doing," and "They
relied on tick-box." Others are very professional—as
Asha has said. By and large, it is the outsourcing that we see
as an issue, and there is an issue around its cost as well. As
far as the reports are concerned, which is a major part of the
policy, the reports are not as full and rich as they used to be.
They no longer give tables about the judgments on teaching and
learning, so you have no idea how many teaching and learning sessions
were viewed or what percentage, which can be very low, and you
don't know the grades of those sessions. You have no idea, because
it is not included in the reports of any achievement data, so
you cannot compare when you are reading reports. I have a quick
look at the reports when they were published, because we have
had complaints from our principals about not being able to access
their reports. Just looking yesterday at 405 reports and the new
methodology placed on the web this year, 49% of those reports
were published late, some up to 200 days late. And I'd suggest
on the performance of an internal—speaking of ALI, I am
ex-ALI, so I declare that—if you look at the 2005-06 annual
report for the ALI, 99% of reports were published on time. That
is not about, I believe, because it is a big organisation. The
reports are late, because either there is an outstanding query
on the judgment or because there is something operationally not
working, which may be to do with the outsourcing. Whatever it
is, it puts more cost into the system and it delays judgment going
out into the public domain. So there are, I think, a range of
issues with this outsourcing arrangement that I believe should
be looked at.
Professor Foskett: Can I comment
in the context of ITE, which in recent years is the area that
I am more familiar with in schools inspection? In a large system,
you might expect a limited amount of variability in the nature
of inspection, but the consistent view repeated to me by institutions
across the country is one of inconsistency in the judgments that
are made. The worrying thing about that is that ITE inspection
is really high stakes inspection, because of the direct connection
to funding decisions by the TDA. Many of the stories are clearly
anecdotal rather than strongly evidential. Stories that come out
of inspection are a lack of familiarity with the inspection framework
by the inspection team, or the use of minute evidence to be extrapolated
to make grand judgments about institutions or programmes, which
is really very worrying. To quote one of my colleagues who has
said on a number of occasions, "If the inspection report
that was produced on their institution was presented as a master's
level dissertation, it would fail because of a lack of evidence
to support the judgment."
Q188 Chair: Is there any evidence
that because of the inconsistency in quality there is a big moderation
exercise going on? It is like a car production line; we don't
get it right the first time, which basically leads to people who
have never even visited the institution editing the reports to
try and bring them up to a bland level of acceptability. Is there
any evidence for that?
Professor Husbands: There is a
moderation exercise.
Q189 Chair: And is it quite large
in scale?
Lesley Davies: There is a double
moderation exercise, because I believe the ISPs—the regional
service providers—moderate, and Ofsted then carries out
its own small sampling moderation.
Asha Khemka: However, it is not
really fair to compare the ALI with Ofsted whether it is improved
or not, because although there has been improvement in those areas,
as Lesley has talked about, we are talking about very different
inspectional frameworks. The common inspection framework has changed
several times and the most recent one, which has just finished,
had 276 questions or something along those lines, whereas the
ALI inspection framework was very different. At the same time,
Ofsted used to be in colleges as well to assess the performance
of 16 to 18-year-olds, and the ALI based its focus on adult numbers.
I don't think it is a fair comparison to say whether Ofsted, as
a result of that inspection service, has deteriorated or improved.
Q190 Pat Glass: Can I ask you
about the tick-box exercise? It was interesting what you said
about why the inspectors bother even coming and why they don't
just ring up and give your grade. One of my issues has always
been the lack of planning time that Ofsted has. In a sense, the
tick-boxing should go on first, and then the professional judgment
and dialogue should take place in the institution. Is that happening,
and would it be better if Ofsted had better planning time?
Professor Husbands: There are
three parts to the answer. First, one of the reasons why inspection
has increasingly moved to what looks like a tick-box framework
is risk aversion on the part of Ofsted. Given its accountability,
one of the ways in which you insure yourself against the consequences
of that is that you systematise the process. Secondly, inspection
teams are certainly working on very tight time scales. It is now
quite rare, in the case of ITE, for substantial reading to be
done before the inspectors arrive. It is very rare for the team
to have met before they arrive. Again, I think that is a consequence
of intensification of labour at Ofsted's end; it is the way that
it is required to manage itself. Thirdly, the consequence—certainly
this was the case in our most recent inspection—is that
judgments are reached very quickly on the basis of documentation,
which are very difficult for the inspectors to revise in the course
of the substance of the inspection. Substantial dialogue takes
place around judgments that have been reached very quickly on
the first morning on a reading of the documentation. That is a
three-part answer that probably could have been summarised by
the word, "Yes."
Lesley Davies: On better planning
time, the three weeks that we have at the moment is a minimum,
I think. I would err against any inspectorate trying to plan.
Even now there is evidence that what the inspectors have to do
is just take pot luck on what they can view as teaching and learning,
because it is such a short time scale. Nothing can be fully arranged,
so it is very much a case of seeing what they can see on the day.
The tick box certainly appears around data. Most of the complaints
that I have received from principals to the Association of Colleges
concern an over-reliance on data. Data are certainly something
Ofsted has before it goes into inspections. If data drive the
inspection on the ground—as many principals report—because
they are something solid and a solid outcome, you certainly know
the data issues before you go in.
Q191 Nic Dakin: I am picking up
that you are all very clear that Ofsted has played a significant
part in improving what is going on in our schools and colleges
and in ITT, but that we are at a point now where there is an opportunity
for change. Listening to the four of you, I have a vision coming
through from Asha of an opportunity for change, which is based
more on self-evaluation, with Ofsted's role coming afterwards,
but I am not picking up whether that view is universally shared.
I am also picking up a bit of a contradiction, Asha. You are saying—I
agree with you—that young people choosing between institutions
should be able to have a similar evidence base on school sixth
forms and colleges. Would you argue for that approach to be for
schools as well, so that it is consistent across the piece?
Asha Khemka: Obviously I would
not want to dictate what happens in schools, but any system that
is simple, transparent and gives the right information to the
user—students, parents and taxpayers—needs to be looked
at. The reason why I am advocating the model of universal peer
review—[Interruption.] I think you are having difficulty
hearing me. I am advocating a model based on a vigorous peer review
and a self-assessment tool kit. The reason why I am discussing
the consistency of information on success rates and comparisons
between schools and colleges when the choices are made is important.
We need to come up with a framework that gives the right information—the
same information to the public—on success rates in colleges
for young people and success rates in schools. How we do that
is a matter for debate. What we need to consider—
Chair: Brief answer, please, Asha.
Asha Khemka: Now is the time to
give value for money. We are in a difficult financial situation.
Thinking about value for money, if we already have a framework
for excellence, minimum levels of performance and other requirements,
why do we include those as part of inspections as well? That is
what I am advocating.
Professor Husbands: One thing
to remember about initial teacher training inspection is that
it is almost the case that we have never used the same inspection
framework over two cycles of inspection. That makes it very difficult
to make comparisons, and it makes it incredibly difficult for
Alan Smithers to do his league tables, because the basis for comparison
shifts around all the while. We are probably about to see a considerable
policy shift in the management of initial teacher education. We
are moving to a more diverse system. Although the temptation is
to say, "Let's keep the current framework and run it for
longer," because it has moved in the direction of self-evaluation,
we will have to design an inspection framework that captures a
much more diverse system of initial teacher education. There are
some difficult questions to be handled there.
Lesley Davies: It is perfectly
possible to have a common inspection framework that does exactly
that—it acts as a framework. Underneath that, where you
have maturing parts of the sector—the college sector is
mature—by and large there is little in the way of inadequacy.
Most are satisfactory, good or outstanding, and you can apply
that framework with a lighter touch and rely on the development
of peer review. Where performance isn't that high, in other parts
of the world, you would revert back to a heavier inspection process.
You start to flex up, therefore, the possibility that not all
the resources go into inspection. Those resources can go into
the sector to self-improve, where it is mature enough to do that.
You always have that risk-based approach, where an inspectorate
can, at any time, go in and decide to inspect. That would give
us the best of both worlds. It would move us forwards with using
good management information, and it would reduce the burden of
everyday inspection. Why frequently go into a college that is
good and monitor it, when every indication that you have on annual
surveys, whether it is on performance, success rates, learner
views, employer views, learner destinations or finance, suggests
that you do not need to? It is possible to have both, but we need
to look at a more sophisticated way of delivering inspection services.
Q192 Nic Dakin: How would you
pick up the celebratory good practice—stretching the ceiling
as well as stretching the floor part—in that approach?
Lesley Davies: At the moment,
we have other ways of doing that through Excalibur with the Learning
and Skills Improvement Service. Whether the good practice should
come through an inspection regime, or whether that should be part
of one of our other organisations, or whether it is possible for
us to declare a thematic on good practice, which does happen,
there are other ways. What I would hate to see—we are in
danger of seeing this—is our not celebrating and sharing
good practice, because we are so focused on risk assessment and
value for money. Whether or not that's an inspection service requirement,
I think that that could be delivered in a different way. We need
to think a little more widely and innovatively about the inspection
service for the future.
Q193 Nic Dakin: When the head
teacher unions came to see us recently they argued that the current
four-scale grading system is inadequate, because it doesn't do
what it's trying to do. Do you agree with that, or do you think
that it's a sound grading approach?
Professor Husbands: In initial
teacher training, grade four effectively serves two different
purposes. It serves the purpose of grading inadequacy, and it
serves the function of grading non-compliance, which may include
technical non-compliance. Non-compliance may arise due to an individual
not complying with the required number of days in school. So effectively
you have a three-grade system, because the fourth grade inevitably
triggers an investigation from the TDA into the prospect of withdrawal
of accreditation. The four-grade structure is not fit for purpose,
because there needs to be something that teases out non-compliance
from adequacy. It is possible to be technically compliant and
inadequate.
Q194 Nic Dakin: So how would you
change it?
Professor Husbands: You could
go for five grades. You could go for a non-compliance grade and
four other grades.
Q195 Nic Dakin: Do you agree with
limiting judgments for grading? Has that been a helpful innovation
from Ofsted?
Asha Khemka: I don't think that
that is helpful at all, because the safeguarding and equality
of opportunity limiting grade has skewed the results for further
education colleges, which is not fair, because safeguarding is
a different issue in schools compared with colleges. Equality
of opportunity should be embedded in an organisation's practice
rather than being a separate limited grade, because that does
not really celebrate or promote equal opportunities. It does not
even celebrate the safeguarding element, so it should not be the
case. As far as the four grades are concerned, we started with
seven based on lesson observation. We moved to five, and then
we moved to four, so we are never happy. I am very happy with
four grades, and my colleagues would support me on that, because
the four grades give a clear picture of outstanding, good, satisfactory
and inadequate.
Lesley Davies: I think it would
be wonderful if we kept the four grades, but ensured that all
inspectors make the right judgments against those grades. That
is more important than changing the grading system.
Professor Foskett: As I have said,
my recent experience is mainly in ITE, and I agree with Chris's
comments. There are some subtle distinctions that the current
grading system doesn't enable us to tease out. We should look
at the grading system being more sophisticated, if you like, at
the bottom end. It would be helpful if we could distinguish between
those categories.
Q196 Lisa Nandy: During this inquiry,
we have heard a great deal of evidence that Ofsted is a serious
cause of stress. From your own experiences, do you agree with
that?
Professor Foskett: Shall I kick
off on that one? The simple answer, again, is yes. The notion,
particularly in schools, of changing the amount of notice does
not really change the situation—in ITE, the reduction in
the amount of notice for inspection was partly in response to
concerns about the long-term build-up of stress during the preparation
for such inspections. You know, more or less, when you're going
to be inspected, so if you have reasonable notice you at least
know when it's going to be and you can worry about it, rather
than worrying that it might be tomorrow or next week. So I am
not sure that that has changed much.
Q197 Lisa Nandy: Is it something
that is inherent in the system, or are there practical things
that you can do?
Professor Foskett: In any form
of measurement, assessment or judgment, there is bound to be some
element of stress. That can be positive stress, because it is
about driving for change and improvement, which is right. I suppose
that it is the high-stakes nature of the judgments that produces
a real worry about the exact consequences of any failure to achieve
against such high standards. That really worries me. Anecdotally,
once again, I am certainly aware of quite a number of people within
ITE who have experienced quite severe personal health issues as
a result of their experiences of Ofsted inspection, particularly
where those judgments were deemed to be unfair, unrealistic and
based on inappropriate evidence and where there was a high-stakes
negative consequence that came with that.
Q198 Lisa Nandy: I've been mulling
this over while listening to you all, and it seems to me that
part of the stress that is being created is because there isn't
a great deal of confidence that the judgment that will come back
will necessarily be fair. If those judgments were improved, would
it be a less stressful experience for people going through it?
Professor Husbands: There is stress
built into this. None of us likes examinations, and this is an
examination. I think that, in initial teacher training, the consequences
of failure are very significant in terms of potential withdrawal
of institutional accreditation. We all often feel that examiners
are going to mark us unfairly. If we think back to the exams that
we took at school, that is built in. Most of us come out of the
other end feeling pretty sure that they did mark us unfairly,
so I think that that is probably built into the system. The stress
is probably a second-order issue. Get the framework right, get
the structure right, and that is manageable. It is never going
to go away.
Chair: Thank you all very much for giving
evidence to us this morning.
|
