Memorandum submitted
by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1. It is ATL's view that it is futile to review
Ofsted without reviewing the whole accountability system for schools.
1.2. We believe that the severe negative impacts
on both students and staff outweigh any achievement of the government's
desired aims for Ofsted inspections.
1.3. There are serious question marks over Ofsted's
consistency and the quality of inspections, in particular an over-reliance
on examination data. Given this, we question the government's
decision to use Ofsted judgments as a basis for entirely separate
policy, such as the expansion of Academies.
1.4. We strongly advocate a shift from national
to local accountability for schools. Ofsted should cease to undertake
section 5 inspections and its role would be to quality assure
local processes. Government should commission an independent review
to redefine Ofsted's form and function.
1.5. It is even more vital that the accountability
system and Ofsted inspections are fully reviewed in light of the
government's plans for academies and free schools which will sit
outside of local authority structures.
2. ABOUT THE
ASSOCIATION OF
TEACHERS AND
LECTURERS
ATL, the education union
2.1. ATL, as a leading education union, recognises
the link between education policy and our members' conditions
of employment. Our evidence-based policy making enables us to
campaign and negotiate from a position of strength. We champion
good practice and achieve better working lives for our members.
2.2. We help our members, as their careers develop,
through first-rate research, advice, information and legal support.—Our
160,000 members—teachers, lecturers, headteachers and support
staff—are empowered to get active locally and nationally.
We are affiliated to the TUC, and work with government and employers—through
partnership and by lobbying.
ATL policy
2.3. ATL believes that teachers as professionals
must be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement,
at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role
of education in increasing social justice. Within light national
parameters, development of the education system should take place
at a local level: the curriculum should be developed in partnership
with local stakeholders; assessment should be carried out through
local professional networks. Schools and colleges are increasingly
encouraged to work collaboratively to offer excellent teaching
and learning, and to support pupils' well-being, across a local
area. Accountability mechanisms should be developed so that there
is a proper balance of accountability to national government and
the local community, which supports collaboration rather than
competition
3. OFSTED IS
ONLY A
PART OF
THE ACCOUNTABILITY
SYSTEM
3.1. It is ATL's view that it is futile to review
Ofsted without reviewing the whole accountability system for schools.
3.2. ATL believes that accountability is a duty
on all public servants and especially those entrusted with the
education of future generations. However, accountability must
be balanced against professional autonomy.
3.3. We said in our submission to the Select
Committee for Children, Schools and Families' 2009/10 enquiry
into school accountability that "Professional accountability
implies commitment to evaluate and improve, it does not require
a juggernaut of data collection and detailed comparison of schools".
The current accountability system gives undue weight to central
government, particularly through national test data and Ofsted
inspection. This leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and mitigates
against professional reflection, innovation and creativity. We
must remember that schools are accountable beyond central government;
to parents, the governing body and the local community. The accountability
system must rebalance these interests.
3.4. Ofsted inspection of schools is a mechanism
for holding individual schools to account. However, schools do
not operate in isolation from each other; they work within a context
of multiple external factors which affect pupils' learning and
performance, and with a range of multi-agency services and support.
A national inspection agency, visiting an individual school for
a limited period of time cannot understand the local and collaborative
context. And we contend cannot then provide more than a superficial
assessment based mainly on performance data.
3.5. It is perfectly possible to improve "the
performance of Ofsted", as the select committee is assessing,
and still have a deeply inspection unsatisfactory system that
undermines the ability of school staff to provide an excellent
education to their pupils. Instead it is important to look at
the whole picture, how Ofsted, as it currently exists, interacts
with the existence of league tables, high stakes examinations,
school improvement partners (SIPs), self-evaluation, local authorities
and governors. As it is now, we believe that the system requires
educators to concentrate on jumping through hoops—be it
producing the right data from tests, or "passing an Ofsted"—ahead
of what drives them professionally, and what society demands of
them: educating.
3.6. We believe that self-evaluation should drive
school improvement[196].
It should be frank rather than calculated just for Ofsted. It
is right for the self-evaluation form (SEF) to be validated locally
and for families of schools to share good practice in self-evaluation.
Though many teachers hate the bureaucracy, they welcome the benefits
of self-evaluation.[197]
In abolishing the SEF, we are concerned that Michael Gove has
set himself a difficult challenge for how to support school self-evaluation.
There is a danger that, left to their own devices, some schools
will generate systems of self-evaluation which are more bureaucratic
than the self-evaluation form.
3.7. We believe that it is vital to consider
the interaction of school improvement and accountability. Supportive
accountability will encourage schools, colleges and the professionals
working within them to be innovative and creative, where punitive
accountability measures are seen to limit that capacity.
3.8. We are concerned that within a system of
"independent state schools" the government will require
some form of bureaucratic evaluation to monitor quality/consistency
of provision. In the absence of Ofsted inspection, this may become
a desk-based evaluation of test/exam data, which will provide
an extremely limited picture of a school's work and unique circumstances.
However, we know that Ofsted inspection has perverse consequences
for schools, not least that it causes immense additional and unnecessary
paperwork, focuses schools on data rather than education, and
narrows curriculum and other opportunities for pupils.
3.9. There is now a large and excessive web of
accountability mechanisms and school accountability needs rationalising
as a matter of urgency. But this does not mean enhancing the powers
of Ofsted. ATL continues to argue that Ofsted inspection of maintained
schools is unnecessary as it duplicates a range of accountability
and support mechanisms locally and nationally and impacts negatively
upon both learners and professionals.
4. IMPACTS OF
THE INSPECTION
PROCESS
4.1. While we all want all schools to provide
the best possible education for their pupils, the current inspection
regime puts huge pressure on schools not judged good or outstanding
to teach to a narrow curriculum that will not necessarily develop
the skills, attitudes, confidence, and passion for learning which
young people need. The centrally-driven accountability system
demands that schools act in response to what Ofsted requires.
What Ofsted argues are non-compulsory actions—such as written
lesson plans—but which they may request to see, are enforced
by head teachers and governors hamstrung by fear. Frequently,
this is neither in accordance with the needs of every child nor
society's expectations of our education system. That Ofsted can
essentially dictate so much of what goes on in a school is an
uncomfortable truth undermining professionals and ultimately the
education of young people themselves.
4.2. It is hard to put it better than the Children,
Schools and Families' Select Committee's 2010 report into school
accountability:
"Yet most of those who may wish to use the Tables,
particularly parents, remain unaware of the very serious defects
associated with them and will interpret the data presented without
taking account of their inherent flaws. As a result, many schools
feel so constrained by the fear of failure according to the narrow
criteria of the Tables that they resort to measures such as teaching
to the test, narrowing the curriculum, an inappropriate focusing
of resources on borderline candidates, and encouraging pupils
towards 'easier' qualifications, all in an effort to maximise
their performance data. There is an urgent need for the Government
to move away from these damaging Achievement and Attainment Tables
and towards a system which gives a full and rounded account of
a school's provision."
4.3. In our survey of members in summer 2010,
69% of respondents said that Ofsted inspections did not help their
school to improve. 76% did not agree that Ofsted inspections supported
the raising of attainment of different pupil groups. And 90% stated
that Ofsted inspections did not help them to do their job better.
4.4. Over three quarters of respondents reported
either a moderate or significant amount of work was given to them
"because Ofsted might visit". In addition, as many as
1 in 12 described the workload increase as "unmanageable".
This additional work included:
— "Unnecessary
assessments and paperwork, done 'just in case'."
— "Increased
lesson observations, increased marking burden, increased assessment
of students, increased input of data to track students progress."
— "Additional
reports to Governors, evidence forms, work scrutiny, planning
scrutiny."
— "Assessment
data updated in at least 3 different formats every review."
— "Rapid
analysis of data. Work with people on the follow on from data.
Social cohesion boards in our classroom with regular updates.
Regular surveys most of which were analysed in house."
— "Gathering
of evidence."
— "Lesson
plan scrutiny weekly - two meetings a week, data reports six weekly,
faculty reports six weekly, reports, reports, reports!"
— "Display
rearrangement."
4.5. Education professionals understand their
responsibilities to their pupils and their parents. However, we
believe that Ofsted regime impacts negatively on pupils' education
and on those who teach. One ATL member, when listing the work
justified in pre-emption of an inspection, says, "The thing
is all of this seems reasonable and what we should do, but the
pace has been relentless and we are exhausted". Another describes
the overriding dominance of the expectation of Ofsted inspection:
"Since July last year we have had to be Ofsted ready—as
they might come at any minute. With constant reminders nearly
every morning, this made the whole staff feel stressed and disengaged.
Every thing had to be done in this light." Given a list of
existing criteria and asked what Ofsted should and shouldn't be
judging, members responding to our survey volunteered staff happiness
or wellbeing as an addition.
4.6. On the new framework introduced in the last
academic year, one member told us that "The whole process
was far more negative than any previous inspection. I have always
broadly agreed with previous inspections but not this one. I would
rather leave teaching than go through another." And another
put Ofsted into context: "In times where the economy is delicate
and lives are stressful, Ofsted inspections are an unnecessary,
expensive and stressful part of the system."
4.7. We believe that the severe negative impacts
on both students and staff outweigh any achievement of the government's
desired aims for Ofsted inspections—ostensibly the publication
of comparative snapshot judgments.
5. CONSISTENCY,
QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE OF
OFSTED
5.1. Evidence backs up the view that the focus
of Ofsted is wrong, suggesting that approximately 85% of the variation
in pupil achievement is due to factors external to the school,
such as family background and economic circumstances.[198]
By putting more emphasis on exam and test results, Ofsted will
be holding schools to account for things that are entirely outside
their control.
5.2. ATL members are concerned about the abilities
of inspection teams. If Ofsted inspections continue, it is essential
that inspectors should have excellent knowledge and understanding
of the phases that they inspect, particularly in the early years,
and preferably based on recent classroom experience, and that
they are fully trained in equality and diversity. The select committee
report into school accountability earlier this year was clear
that "inspectors will need to be highly trained and well
qualified if they are to make an accurate evaluation of school
provision."
5.3. Our members are sceptical about the consistency
of Ofsted inspections both at the level of individual lesson observations—a
snapshot of "20 minutes out of 1000 hours of teaching a year"
as one teacher puts it—and at the level of overall judgments,
which for many schools have jumped significantly under the most
recent framework. Media reports such as that published by The
Daily Telegraph in April this year[199],
which record schools moving from a provisional assessment of "inadequate"
to a judgment of "outstanding" upon publication of the
final report, are not reassuring. Anecdotal evidence indicates
inconsistency on safeguarding judgments and ATL members at our
2010 annual conference passed a resolution of concern that safeguarding
is impacting significantly on the overall judgment received by
schools.
5.4. Members retain concerns that Ofsted does
not properly account for school intake. ATL is clear that schools
who can clearly demonstrate improvement should be able to be judged
"good" even if examination results are weaker when compared
nationally.
5.5. The impact of Ofsted inspections has obvious
immediate consequences for staff and students of a school. However,
Ofsted inspection has longer-term consequences when the judgments
are used as the basis for other government policy. In particular,
we believe that the consistency and credibility of Ofsted judgments
is too much in doubt to be used to determine such significant
changes as the expansion of Academies, with far-reaching and potentially
damaging consequences to young people and to school staff.
6. WHAT IS
THE ALTERNATIVE
TO OFSTED
INSPECTION?
6.1. If Ofsted section 5 inspection is to continue,
we believe inspections should be based upon a balance of self-evaluation,
inspectors' judgment and data and statistics. Currently, there
remains an over-reliance on (often unreliable) data, particularly
that from high-stakes exams. Surveyed ATL members believe that
the SEF can be the main basis for grading their school, ahead
of the inspection team's judgment and with over twice as much
support as for data and statistics.
6.2. However, we strongly advocate a shift from
national to local accountability for schools.
6.3. We believe that Ofsted should cease to undertake
section 5 inspections in favour of a local system of accountability.[200]
In our radical rationalisation of the accountability system, schools
would report much more locally, and much less nationally. A reformed
SIP would work with local school improvement services, combining
inspection and support with the advantage of understanding schools'
local context. It is essential that SIPs are a critical friend
of the school; nurturing and supportive.
6.4. It is important that there is not a duplication
of interests or responsibilities. Ofsted should not be replicating
the role of the SIP nor undermining the SIP in the work its inspectors
do.
6.5. An effective system would see SIPs able
to encourage self-evaluation to be frank and useful, not written
simply for Ofsted. SIPs would have a duty to report their evaluation
of the SEF against their own ongoing knowledge of the school to
the local authority and this would be moderated by Ofsted, who
would quality assure all local accountability processes.
6.6. It is not clear in current government proposals
how the local authority or its school improvement work will continue.
However, we believe it is vital that it does, and that all schools
come under a supportive local authority framework.
6.7. School-by-school inspection by Ofsted is
unnecessary and would end under our rationalisation. Ofsted could
instead focus on strengths such as its useful thematic reports.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1. ATL hopes the committee does not forget
the work of its predecessor. In its first report of 2009-10, into
school accountability, the Children, Schools and Families Committee
was clear in its caution against "even greater complexity
in an already overly complex system of school accountability and
improvement initiatives" and in its support of self-evaluation
as a crucial part of school improvement and accountability.
7.2. The committee also states that "Inspection
should be a positive experience, reinforcing good practice and
fostering dialogue with schools in relation to areas where further
improvement can be made." We are confident that this is not
the case and that the accountability system requires urgent reform.
Reform from the national to the local. And reform that amends
radically the role of Ofsted, most notably abolishing its school-by-school
inspections.
7.3. We continue to believe that the best system
of accountability and school improvement is one that works across
a local area, supported by the local authority, with a role for
Ofsted in moderating local judgments and carrying out thematic
reviews. We cannot see how this can operate in a system of Academies,
set adrift from the support of local authorities.
7.4. If Ofsted inspection is to continue, this
government must commission an independent review to redefine Ofsted's
form and function, and rationalise the whole accountability system
for schools.
October 2010
196 See www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/88/8806.htm
(part of the previous Select Committee's report into school accountability)
for more on the significance of the SEF. Back
197
Over a third of respondents to ATL's 2010 survey of members said
the SEF was extremely or very beneficial to them and their school.
Less than 6% said it was not useful. Back
198
See for example Cassen R. & Kingdon G. (2007) Tackling
Low Achievement, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Back
199
'Inspectors give wrong ratings to schools': www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7574833/Inspectors-give-wrong-ratings-to-schools.html
Back
200
New accountability for schools - ATL Position Statement,
2007 Back
| 
