Memorandum submitted by Paul Carvin, Head
of Raising Achievement Service, Gateshead Council
In response to the Education Committee inquiry and
call for evidence into the role and performance of Ofsted, a number
of school inspectors (Ofsted trained) in the Raising Achievement
Service (RAS) have collaboratively discussed the seven questions,
and would like to offer the following collective responses:—
1. PURPOSES OF
INSPECTION
— To
ensure that all children, young people and adults in publicly
funded education/training experience provision which meets defined
standards
— To
enable performance of providers to be assessed against published
criteria and through a uniform process
— To
provide a means of effecting public accountability
— To
identify good practice
— To
provide information to government/and to provide information to
service users/the public to inform learner choice
— To
provide feedback as a support to continuous improvement
— To
ensure appropriate use of public funds
— To
monitor compliance with statutory requirements eg re safeguarding,
equality and diversity etc.
— There
is still a real need for Ofsted inspections. They are a monitoring
tool for performance and provision and help to ensure children
receive the highest quality provision.
(a) Raise standards in all areas at all levels
and challenge achievement.
(b) Protecting interests of children and ensuring
happy, safe, achieving.
(c) Give direction and report back on quality
of T&L/L&M.
— Raise
standards and achievement, consistency of expectations, support
SE.
— Quality
assurance of self evaluation, support and challenge schools in
their improvement agenda, process whereby the two partners (Ofsted
and school) come to a mutual understanding of the current performance
and future priorities of the school.
2. IMPACT OF
THE INSPECTION
ON SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT
— There
needs to be an external check as there may be a lack of challenge.
Benchmarked against other schools.
3. PERFORMANCE
OF OFSTED
Generally this is good.
(a) Mostly consistent.
Clear set of criteria for inspections.
Systems and processes are adhered to.
(b) Current system is focused.
(c) Ofsted "fear"
— is
this a lack of knowledge about the process?
— also
a lack of consistency.
Sometimes there is a lack of credibility about some
inspectors who haven't regular direct involvement with school
improvement.
Short reports are good.
4. CONSISTENCY
AND QUALITY
OF INSPECTION
TEAMS
— There
is a limited consistency in the teams, but helpline and monitoring
assist to retain some commonality of consistency and quality.
— There
appears to be inconsistencies based on the evidence within the
authority's schools. Where authorities (like Gateshead) know their
schools well we can identify cases of inconsistency. Need to improve
QA of inspection Teams to address this issue specifically by a
clear definition and consistent application of the QA inspector
role ie to always monitor the critical judgements and the
process by which they are arrived at.
— Need
to have a greater involvement of LA personnel, SIP — for
example, by including SIPs in any situation where "borderline"
judgements are emerging (could be visit or telephone contact).
— It
is qualitative and evaluative process which leads to consistency.
5. WEIGHT GIVEN
TO DIFFERENT
FACTORS
— Attainment/Achievement/T&L
main emphasis
— L&M
too broad (keep impact on T&L essential). (Remove parent partnerships,
equalities, community cohesion and put into section (much smaller)
on ETHOS.
— Remove
ECM and place in smaller section on ETHOS.
— Safeguarding
(not included) but separately inspected by Early Years inspectors
(only £80 per day) or H&S executive.
— CGS
(includes Safeguarding element only).
— Early
Years/6th Form should they be separate? (only separate as a statutory
framework — could be appealed).
— Our
suggestion is that the inspection is Holistic and should be part
of a continuous process throughout a school.
— Safeguarding
— to raise consequence.
6. A SINGLE INSPECTORATE
— No,
current system too dogmatic and unwieldly. Lacking focus.
7. ROLE OF
OFSTED — SCHOOLS
OPERATING WITH
GREATER AUTONOMY
Need to consider what the basis of the autonomy is
eg:
— may
be through a change of status resulting in a different relationship
with the LA and subsequent loss of oversight/support
— may
be a consequence of high level of performance and no inspection
unless performance falls
If we take these two factors together it could be
that the reduced oversight and support presents a risk factor
in relation to performance.
Greater autonomy may therefore create a need for
stronger accountability mechanisms. The question then is how this
mechanism is best effected. This could be either:—
— directly
through Ofsted
— to
Ofsted via a local agency, potentially Local Authority
— to
DfE via Local Authority
The last Option+ offers the advantages of being most
cost effective as the monitoring agent is closest to the individual
institution and of triggering an Ofsted involvement only where
an issue arises. It also maintains a link between "autonomous"
providers and LAs as the "owners" of school improvement,
it supports "localism", and it provides a basis for
maintaining 'families of providers' where increased autonomy might
otherwise militate against this.
— Yes,
very important.
October 2010
| 
