Memorandum submitted by Chailey Heritage
School
OFSTED INQUIRY
1. What the purposes of inspection should
be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings
and services under Ofsted's remit)
— Improving
outcomes, ensuring good outcomes for pupils/young people etc.
— Supporting
and improving self evaluation.
— Accountability.
— Identifying
and evidencing significant causes for concern.
2. The impact of the inspection process on
school improvement
Maintaining and spreading good practice depends on
the quality of inspection process. Good, reflective provisions
welcome evidenced judgements that highlight the need for improvement.
However, when the inspection process is weak or flawed and the
judgements are not sufficiently evidenced/accurate and/or based
on unclear standards then this has a poor impact on school improvement.
It is essential therefore that judgements are evidenced and accurate
and standards and benchmarks are clear, soundly based and well
communicated; it is regrettable that there are occasions when
this has not been the case.
Limiting judgements can also affect the overall outcome
of an inspection and adversely affect school improvement. We have
concerns for mainstream colleagues who might be getting excellent
value added achievements but might still not hit achievement targets.
We are also concerned that that this might be a disincentive for
schools to admit pupils with SEN with learning difficulties
3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out
its work
— It
can be excellent. From dealings we have had with Ofsted, the more
senior staff and especially the Principal HMIs were excellent,
demonstrating a real quality of thought and care about outcomes
for the young people. However, there can be a "tick box"
mentality that is evident in some inspections and even in some
inspection frameworks. This can detract from the focus on outcomes
for the users of the service. For example the inspection process
and judgements can be more about what the regulations/NMS say
needs to be in place, rather than whether procedures and outcomes
meet the needs of the young people.
— There
are also some "rules" — that are not easy for
provisions to source or know beforehand- that detract from the
judgements made during the inspection itself. For example, it
is apparently not possible for a Children's Home to be rated outstanding
on its first inspection, and if a Children's Home has been graded
as inadequate it can not then be more than satisfactory in the
next inspection. Such rigidity is not logical and damages respect
for the overall inspection process.
— NMS
for different provisions need to match up. Currently the NMS for
boarding schools and Children's Homes are different and given
the importance placed on these by inspectors during the inspection,
they should be more similar.
— Single
issues can move an outstanding provision into inadequate. This
can be an inappropriate response to something that can be put
right relatively quickly. If it is also the case that it is not
possible to move from inadequate back to good/outstanding this
can have a devastating impact on a provision's reputation.
— The
impact of the grading system on a provision's reputation and use
should not be underestimated. Some commissioners are now stating
that they will only use provisions where the overall grade is
"outstanding". It is very important therefore that grades
are correct, and that any negative ratings are thoroughly evidenced.
It will not serve the needs of the young people/pupils if good
provisions are placed at risk of closure.
4. The consistency and quality of inspection
teams in the Ofsted inspection process
The experience of our provision has been that on
the whole the education teams are well led, managed and work in
consultation with the school. However, in our experience, the
social care teams have been far less professional. There were
incidents where they did not conduct themselves in the way that
Inspectors should. When we had a joint inspection, the two teams
were not in agreement and conducted themselves differently. The
ethos and processes of the two inspections were likewise different.
5. The weight given to different factors within
the inspection process
Outcomes for the pupils/young people should be the
most important part of an inspection. The weight given by social
care inspectors to tick lists and "what we see on the day"
seemed inappropriate, and in some critical areas such as administration
of medication was not based on properly benchmarked and communicated
standards
6. Whether inspection of all organisations,
settings and services to support children's learning and welfare
is best conducted by a single inspectorate
If the single inspectorate is truly integrated, and
inspectors fully understand the areas they are inspecting, the
answer is yes.
However, putting teams together, bringing in inspectors
who worked under another regime and are then brought into Ofsted,
created comments from a social care inspector who felt she was
underpaid in comparison to education inspectors.
Ethos and processes should be similar as differences
in these have been particularly apparent in joint inspections.
For example, shared lesson observations were excellent but there
was nothing similar in the social care inspection. It is also
essential that teams work together in joint inspection.
7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability
mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy
It is just as important that schools who have greater
autonomy are accountable in a similar way to those who do not.
September 2010
| 
