Memorandum submitted by Emeritus Professor
Malyn Newitt
This evidence has its origin in a lengthy (and unsatisfactory)
correspondence I have had with OFSTED following the inspection,
and follow-up inspection, of Romsey Abbey School where two of
my grandchildren were being educated.
As a result of the inspection (No 338805 carried
out in November 2009) the School was rated "Inadequate"
in both Overall Effectiveness and Capacity for Sustained Improvement.
As this judgment ran directly counter to my family's experience
of the School and to the school's demonstrable excellence in one
subject (Music), I decided to look closely at the report.
As a result a number of disturbing aspects came to
light. I copy here the words of the complaint I made to OFSTED
From the start the report is full of assertions
and judgments for which there is no supporting evidence. In higher
education every statement in a report has to be substantiated
from evidence. Indeed many of the assertions in this report are
contradicted by the information that the inspectors themselves
provide. For example, the adoption of healthy lifestyles was only
awarded a 3 although 94 per cent of parents agreed that the school
helped children adopt a healthy lifestyle. Then, it is the "view
of almost all pupils and parents" that the school is "a
calm and safe environment", yet this element is only awarded
a 3. There are many other such discrepancies between the evidence
and the judgments, which are not explained.
The language of the report is often ill chosen.
Frequently it says that "many parents…" think something
when the evidence is that only a small minority do. A responsibly
drafted report would say "A few parents…" or simply
"Some parents…". Equally serious are the omissions,
which are either deliberate (and reprehensible) or result from
an inadequate inspection. It is well known that Music at the Abbey
School is outstandingly successful, but the sole mention of music
in the report is to say that "parents praise the opportunities
for music". But it is the Music teaching itself which is
outstanding and this receives no mention at all.
There are also procedural shortcomings. Apparently
the inspectors "spoke informally with other pupils and with
parents". This is quite improper. An inspection should be
rigorous in its procedures and should not allow "informal"
sources to influence its findings. Only 9 lessons were observed
over six year groups but this is quite insufficient for any judgment
about teaching quality to be made. Quality assurance in higher
education has long ago understood the pointlessness of observing
a single class as a basis for a judgment on teaching.
There is a lot more that could be said but on
the inspectors own figures 96% of parents say their children enjoy
the school, 84% think their child is making good progress and
91% are "happy with my child's experience
at this school". Meanwhile the head of Romsey secondary school
has said (Romsey Advertiser 18 December) that Abbey pupils "present
a very favourable picture".
These complaints were dealt with by the OFSTED complaints
procedures but in a wholly defensive way. There was no attempt
to address my concerns that there were fundamental problems with
the Inspection Report and the inspection itself.
Following the report the head teacher went on leave
and subsequently resigned. A number of other staff left and went
to other posts. When the follow-up inspection took place the school
was still found to be Inadequate - in other words the original
report had not enabled the School to improve (in the eyes of OFSTED).
As a result of this Inspection Report and the correspondence
I have had with OFSTED, I respectfully make the following points
to the Select Committee.
1. INSPECTION
PROCEDURES NEED
TO BE
RECONSIDERED
1(a) The OFSTED inspection gave the impression
that the Inspectors had formed a judgment and then looked for
evidence to support it. When the evidence did not support their
judgment, they simply ignored this evidence. This may or may not
have been the case, but this is certainly the impression that
they gave.
1(b) Informal meetings with pupils and selected
parents should be discontinued and replaced by formal procedures,
which are open and transparent. It is quite wrong to generalize
about what 'parents' think (as the follow up report does) on the
basis of these selective interviews with unnamed individuals.
1(c) Classroom observations should either be
discontinued or increased in number so that their outcomes can
be statistically valid. As teachers were only observed on a single
occasion, I pointed out to OFSTED that "In no branch of
any science is a sample of one a basis on which to form any conclusion".
2. REPORTING
PROCEDURES NEED
TO BE
MODIFIED
2(a) Conclusions reached should be supported
by, and should be consistent with, the data presented in the report
2(b) Evidence for unfavourable judgments should
be clear and explicit
2(c) There should be great care that the wording
is not misleading (no more use of 'many' where 'few' would be
more accurate etc.)
2(d) Any excellent aspect of the School should
be explicitly mentioned
3. OVERALL JUDGMENTS
SHOULD BE
DISCONTINUED
3(a) Although it is reasonable to make judgments
(with evidence) on specific aspects of a School, the overall judgments,
that summarise the inspection in one word, can be both misleading
and highly damaging. In the case of Romsey Abbey School at least
one aspect of the education is known to be outstanding. The School
has a very high reputation for its Music in the south Hampshire
region and consistently outperforms all other Schools in the regional
music festivals. It is, therefore, quite unfair for this excellence
to be submerged in an overall judgment of 'Inadequate'.
3(b) The same applies to individual teachers.
In an overall judgment there is no discrimination between those
who are excellent and those who are not. All are tarred with the
same brush, which seriously undermines morale.
3c Overall judgments are extremely damaging
to morale. Far from helping a School to improve, such a report
drives away good staff, persuades some parents to remove their
children and damages irretrievably the reputation of the School
in the eyes of those who will never read the report in detail.
4. HOW AN
INSPECTION REPORT
CAN HELP
A SCHOOL
4(a) Instead of bald statements about 'inadequacy',
the report should be specific about what, in the eyes of the inspectors,
can be done to improve aspects of the education, with due consideration
to resources available, the social composition of the intake of
pupils etc.
4(b) Due emphasis should be given to good aspects
of the education and to excellence wherever it is found
4(c) Due credit should be given to the individual
ethos of a School and there should be less emphasis on 'ticking
boxes' and on conformity
5. CONSISTENCY
AND 'BOX
TICKING'
5(a) Another grandchild of mine attended a local
nursery school. This nursery was universally considered excellent
by the parents, there was a long waiting list, the children enjoyed
their experience there and my grand-daughter hugely benefited
from attending it.
5(b) Three years ago an OFSTED inspection found
it to be 'Excellent. The nursery continues to be run by the same
people and in the same way. However, this year another OFSTED
team decided it was 'Inadequate'. As a result it clearly risks
being closed down. This inconsistency by OFSTED is very serious
and it seems quite outrageous that inspectors should invade a
facility that is so highly regarded by the local community and
threaten it with closure. This is little short of bureaucratic
tyranny.
5(c) One possible explanation for this reversal
of OFSTED's judgment is that, since the first inspection, all
sorts of additional requirements have been introduced and that
there are a number of 'boxes' that cannot be satisfactorily ticked.
Again (as in section 4 above) OFSTED could be helpful by drawing
attention to things that might be improved rather than issuing
a public and humiliating condemnation of the work of the nursery
and its staff.
5(d) Nurseries are very diverse in character
and reflect the needs and values of local communities in a very
intimate way. Central inspection of these facilities is quite
inappropriate and should be a task undertaken by Local Education
Authorities, possibly in conjunction with Social Services departments
September 2010
| 
