Memorandum submitted by Alan Quinn
I wish to confine my comments to the issue of Inspection
of maintained schools.
I was an Inspector of Schools, up to retirement in
2006, for 12 years. Prior to that I was a teacher for 30 years.
SUMMARY
— The
purpose of inspections.
— The
impact of the inspection process on school improvement.
— The
performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work.
— The
consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection
process.
— Frequency,
length and notice of inspections.
— School
assessments should not be used in an inspection.
— Context
Value Added is important in assessment of achievement.
— Appropriateness
of light-touch inspections.
— A survey
by me of a number of schools shows disparities in inspection judgements.
Findings from 6 schools are included.
— Accountability
in the inspection process is dependent on reliability and consistency
in making judgements.
Responding to some questions provided by the Committee:
1. I would first question the assumption that
OFSTED is independent of Government. It follows Government directives
by incorporating them into the inspection process. Inspectors
are obliged to avoid controversy, for example when considering
the balance of a curriculum as prescribed by government, and stick
to prescriptive criteria. The purpose of OFSTED is to judge standards
effectively and consistently and so enable institutions to improve
provision but the context of the inspections must relate to each
school separately and allow inspectors flexibility. The process
is too rigid.
2. Whatever its shortcomings the inspection process
on school performance is a powerful influence on schools. Performance
has greatly improved across the educational spectrum since the
introduction of a national inspection system. Prior to 1994, many
schools were hidden from effective scrutiny and the variations
in practice were wide. There was very little co-ordination of
expectations in standards or achievement. Now, however, the distinctions
between schools' performance are getting less clear. Generally
there is little firm, clear evidence to support inspection judgements,
particularly on Standards reached, except a school's own self-assessments.
It looks like there is grade inflation occurring because the evidence
base is not sufficiently rigorous. Comments are often bland. Standards
are a key judgement is grading a school's effectiveness. This
has developed a complacency in schools. They have, subtlety, taken
over control of outcomes and judgements through the self-assessment
procedures. Once endorsed by Ofsted, with an overall Grade 1 or
2 (now the most common) the school is "safe" and the
drive for improvement can easily slacken.
3. The maximum gap between full inspections should
be six years for high performing schools, with occasional monitoring
visits, as necessary. Three years would be appropriate for most
schools. Schools on "Notice to Improve" should be visited
regularly.
Section 5 inspections are generally too short and
with too small a team of inspectors for a thorough review of a
school's performance. Notice of inspection should be no more than
one day. Such inspections would be of the nature of "spot-checks".
This may determine whether and when a further fuller inspection
is necessary. The subsequent inspection should be appropriate
to the school's size. Many schools with 1,000 or more on roll
are inspected in two days. There is, consequently, insufficient
time to address issues adequately.
In the context of an inspection, the school's own
self-assessment should not be made known to the inspection team
until an inspection is complete. Otherwise it will colour judgements.
The extent to which it confirms or contradicts the inspection
findings would be a significant piece of evidence on the school's
management and monitoring processes and would form part of the
report's findings. National tests are essential benchmarks but
only if used to compare like with like.
A school's context will, by definition, play a major
part in measuring any improvement in attainment but the weight
applied to any factor needs to be agreed between school and inspection
team. This would assist in the planning of an inspection. Value
added to pupils' performances is the key judgement to be made
about a school's performance. It needs to be measured between
Key Stages and needs to follow the same cohort, as far as is reasonable.
This is rarely the case.
The light-touch inspections are appropriate for high-performing
schools but criteria for identifying them should be agreed nationally.
It is essential that inspection reports be in the
public domain and easily accessible. The current Ofsted website
is not assisting this process. Schools' interpretations of reports,
issued to the press and parents, are often misleading (see below
in sample of three schools). Easy public access to original reports
is therefore essential.
4. Outside the direct questions from the Committee
I would like to outline some research I have carried out into
the reliability of inspections. I have taken 6 schools from the
sample (it may be appropriate not to identify them in any published
material—I identify them here so that the facts may be verified
if you so wish).[209]
The first three are more detailed than the others. The inconsistencies
are not untypical. They serve to suggest that quality of inspections
is not always reliable and, thus, that some teams may not be adequate
for the task.
(See samples below)
1. SAMPLE 1
Inspection date; 25-26 September 2006
Overall Grade = 3 (satisfactory)
Leadership & Management
= 3
Achievement & Standards
= 3
Special Needs = close to Nat. Av. Value Added = below
average. Persistent absence = 8.3%. 20th/24 in Local
Authority Ranking
Quality of Teaching & Learning = 3
Frequent staff changes. "Teachers plan lessons
well and ensure (!?) pupils understand what they are expected
to learn.............interesting lessons". School is aware
of the need to improve teaching to ensure that all pupils make
"good progress..."
GCSE 2006 A*-C = 22%
GCSE 2007 A*-C = 19% A fall. This does not match
the report's findings and gradings. The report was carried out
in September 2006. It is inaccurate—weaknesses in the system—inconsistencies
in 2006. No improvement till 2008.
No recommendation for "Special Measures"
or "Notice to Improve". Yet an Interim Monitoring visit
took place on 14/12/07 which indicated "Satisfactory progress".
GCSE 2008 A*-C = 31% well below national average
still but shows very good progress! This seems to be independent
of the OFSTED reporting and monitoring system.
2. SAMPLE 2
Inspection date; 20-21 November 2007 Was placed in
"Special Measures" in May 2007
Overall Effectiveness =
4 (inadequate)
Leadership & Management =
2
"L & M are now good"
Achievement & Standards =
4
Special needs = above Nat.Av but few requiring statements.
Contextual Value Added = below average. Unauthorized absence =
3.9% (2007) Persistent absence = 9.7% (2008). 62nd/84
in LA Ranking.
"...has made good progress since the
last inspection" (my emphasis)
Quality of Teaching & Learning =
3
"...teaching and learning are now satisfactory
overall" "Teaching is beginning to make a positive impact
on students' progress..."
GCSE 2006 A*-C = 38%
GCSE 2007 = 42%
GCSE 2008 = 43% An insignificant rise.
Recommendation for "Notice to Improve".
This took place on 20/11/07—school predicts/indicates a
rise of 11 percentage points in GCSE 2008—not so! Just 1.
This report is broadly in line with the evidence
and gives a more accurate picture of the school's performance.
Contrast this with the report of the school cited above. However
some of the judgements do not fit.
The school's release however gave a different and
misleading impression! Eg—"Unlike many other schools
nationally a key feature of (this school's) success is the impressive
result achieved in English and mathematics"—53% and
60% A*-C(respectively).
3. SAMPLE 3
Inspection date; 30 September/1 October 2008
Overall Effectiveness =
2 (good)
Leadership & Management
= 2
Achievement & Standards
= 2
Special needs are high but stated as of "low
order". Statemented nos. are below Nat.Av. Contextual Value
Added = Nat.Av. Persistent absences = 13.4% (2008)—usually
a valid indicator of management problems. This % is high. High
mobility of pupils. 16th/16 in LA rankings. Standards
are well below average.
An inappropriate grade for standards.
Quality of Teaching & Learning
= 2
"Teaching needs to be more focussed on assessing
needs through effective questioning......insufficient challenge
and progress"
An inappropriate grade for teaching.
It should be noted that "Many students take
longer to reach nationally expected grades at GCSE. They often
continue into the 6th form, where they improve on lower
grades..."
GCSE 2006 A*-C = 19% (18% for those in the GCSE age
range)
GCSE 2007 = 26% (% not known)
GCSE 2008 = 28% (25%)
The school's low performance in standards is not
reflected in this report. The sample school No. 2 (above) could,
justifiably, feel aggrieved at the disparity between these reports.
The school claims it is an "excellent"
report in its "News to pupils and parents"!
4. SAMPLE 4
Inspection date; 11-12 March 2009
Overall effectiveness
= 2
Achievement & Standards
= 2
"...standards are a little above average".
Progress and attendance are also issues.
Teaching =2
"Letter to Pupils" says; "should check
more regularly whether you are learning as well as similar students
in the school..." and "work is not always matched well
to different pupils" and, "the teacher......doesn't
give you enough to do to ensure that you learn well"
Three key points, yet an overall grade of "good".
5. SAMPLE 5
Inspection date; 10-11 May 2010
Overall effectiveness =
3 (satis)
Standards = 3
Standards .. "now at national average"
Teaching = 3
Yet teaching is criticised; "the considerable
variation in teaching is the reason why all groups of students...
make satisfactory rather than better progress"
This indicates how fewer grade boundaries now limit
refinement of judgements. In the previous Section 10 Inspections
there were seven grades available. The above example suggests
a Gd. 4 would have been awarded (unsatisfactory).
6. SAMPLE 6
Inspection date; 28-29 April 2010
Overall effectiveness =
3
Teaching = 3
"Teachers do not always take the opportunity
to stretch students sufficiently or allow them to take on more
responsibility for their own learning (?). The Quality of Teaching
is not consistently good enough to secure more than satisfactory
overall process"
And
"Many parents are concerned about the need for
improvements in the tracking progress". Oddly this is not
matched in the parents' responses on Teaching & Progress in
the questionnaire. They were more positive.
The evidence base does not seem sufficiently secure.
Accountability in the inspection process must include
reliability and consistency when applying criteria of judgements.
Without these, comparisons of achievement, standards and practices
will be of questionable value.
5. The format for reporting has changed since 2009-10.
It is now less informative. Previously the shorter reports had:
(a) Introduction/Description of School
(b) Overall effectiveness of the school
( " " " " " the Sixth Form)
(c) What school should do to improve further
(d) Achievement & Standards
(e) Personal development & Well-being
(f) Quality of Provision
(g) Teaching & Learning
(h) Care, Guidance & Support
(i) Leadership & Management
These are followed by tables of Inspection Judgements/Grades
and, finally, the text from a "Letter to Pupils".
There are eightOverall Grades.
The new format is generally briefer. There are now
just three overall grades. On average, two to six paragraphs are
given to comments on aspect inspected, varying with perceived
importance. The number of main headings has been reduced from
nine to six. "Achievement and Standards", the key issue
in an inspection, is now subsumed into "Main Findings"
and/or "Outcomes", often with brief comments.
6. The range of organizations and services that
Ofsted now inspects is too wide and too numerous. It was set up
to monitor effectiveness of education in maintained schools. Its
focus is being dissipated. It is now covering fields outside education.
7. The accountability of Ofsted depends on consistency
(see above). The inspection process is now too dependent on a
school's own assessments of its effectiveness. This should not
drive an inspection but be tested by the inspection with
a more vigorous approach (see paras 2 and 3 above).
In the Ofsted Annual Report of 2008-09 it states;
"Ofsted is a significant ingredient in the cocktail of improvement"
but, in truth, this is self-fulfilling. Inspection has become
an internalized process, based on schools' own assessments. 76%
of schools' self-assessment is graded "good or outstanding".
Overall Grades are now in a narrow range (1 to 4) and c. 70% are
either 1 or 2. On the other hand the gap between Grades 3 and
4 is now too wide. The ratio of these awarded grades is now 7:1
respectively.
2005-06—All schools (Section 5 inspections)
| Gd 1 | Gd 2
| Gd 3 | Gd 4 |
| 11% | 48% |
34% | 8% |
| 2008-09 | 19% | 50%
| 28% | 4% |
The % of "satisfactory" has not moved much!!
Benchmarks from earlier Section 10 inspections, prior to 2005,
are difficult to establish over the longer term so genuine assessment
of progress over the years is limited.
October 2010
209
Schools not identified in published material on Committee website. Back
| 
