Memorandum submitted by Reading Borough
Council
What the purposes of inspection should be (relating
not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services
under Ofsted's remit)
Currently not clear
Should be:
— being
advocate for child;
— quality
assurance;
— value
for money;
— outcomes
for children—national perspective;
— identify
content of curriculum delivery / style on outcomes;
— consistency
around quality assurance/vulnerable groups;
— every
child matters and individual needs of each youngster—providing
highest quality provision;
— reviewing/evaluating
impact of each individual school making them accountable/challenging;
— accountability
hold schools accountable for public purse; and
— national
consistency.
Local Authority inspection:
— A more
formative process would be more useful. There need to be more
links back between inspection and Improvement; inspection should
look at learning and improvement over time. At present it is difficult
to see if any improvement has been made as the bar to reach keeps
being raised. It would be helpful to have the same set of people
doing inspections and providing follow-up support as in the current
schools model.
— Needs
to be more of a partnership inspection—those LAs who have
been inspected recently feel that the inspection almost completely
focuses on children's social care services. Partners only feel
peripherally engaged. Senior managers from partner organisations
should be invited to start and end of inspection visit and there
should be a visit to police CP teams to match visits to referral
and assessment and A and E teams.
— There
should only be one inspection service for children ie not separate
inspections for YOS and youth services.
— Ofsted
needs to catch up with changing role of authorities and expectations
of DFE, the model needs to change quickly, e.g. new emphasis on
Local Authorities as Commissioners as opposed to providers.
Schools Feedback:
— Ofsted
to take on a more forensic approach similar to that in the Safeguarding
inspections ie look at exclusions or NEET by scrutinising files.
We believe Ofsted should explore in detail case studies of the
last two excluded pupils and two NEET students.
General points
— Why
have a monopoly on inspections? If we are clear in what we want—schools
or local authorities could commission inspections from a framework
agreement which has vetted providers which could add energy and
bring down costs.
— There
is great value of peer involvement in inspection for both schools
and local authorities. We would like to see peers as part of teams.
— There
is also value of involvement of children and families in inspection,
we would like to consider how this might be achieved.
The impact of the inspection process on school
improvement
— Not
always positive—distracts from improvement—wrong direction.
— Process
and planning positive mandate with staff as to what has to be
done—positive driver—after judgement gives direction
and plan for the future.
— Window
dressing—not sure what goes on behind the scenes.
— Process
more important than inspection itself.
— Depends
on leadership within school as to whether it is positive or negative.
— Best
validates self evaluation ensures that schools are evaluating
their work.
— Without
it—where would we be?
The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its
work
— Quite
weak— number of gaping holes in terms of equalities—poor
performance.
— Failure
to carry out statutory duties in terms of equalities.
— Depends
on team you get.
— Concern
for lack of specialist knowledge—in range of areas including
SEN, early years.
— Range
of issues that are priorities but Ofsted behind the times to focus
on these areas.
— Independence
detracting from performance.
— Too
many changes.
— HMCI
report when issued (Nov) inspections then follow don't appear
to systematically pick up issues highlighted in the issued report.
The consistency and quality of inspection teams
in the Ofsted inspection process
— Inconsistent.
— Specialist
teams—know what they are coming in to so they can understand
the issues.
— Within
teams not necessarily various teams.
— Not
improved since gone out to three providers no noticeable difference—from
schools perception or training provided. Taking in too many inspectors
that are at too great a distance from schools.
— Varies
depending upon lead—are the readers checking the report
is fresh or fit for purpose.
The weight given to different factors within the
inspection process
— Too
focused on outcomes but measures not always appropriate.
— When
kids make progress at special schools acknowledgement that individuals
have made huge progress and the learning with catch up—welcome
challenge.
— Individual
interest and passion of inspectors.
— Welcome
limiting judgements—rigorous in experience.
— Welcome
fact now asking staff what they think in schools/involvement of
parents and children.
— Disagree
about standards—have to give a weight but got balance wrong
between progress and standards—different teams take different
weightings (focus too much on achievement data in special schools).
— Too
much focus on safeguarding which has distorted leadership away
from outcomes agenda (should be there but weighting is wrong).
Whether inspection of all organisations, settings
and services to support children's learning and welfare is best
conducted by a single inspectorate
— No.
— Have
specialists inspecting their own organisation.
The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability
mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy
— Yes
but perhaps part of the role of Ofsted should be investigating
schools on behalf of parents not just educationalists—are
things as they should be as per their statutory responsibilities.
— Why
are the inspections different for academy schools.
— All
should be inspected to the same criteria.
October 2010
| 
