Memorandum submitted by Independent Association
of Prep Schools (IAPS)
1. THE PURPOSE
OF INSPECTION
The purpose of inspection should be two-fold: (a)
to monitor compliance with regulation; and (b) to promote school
improvement. These are two distinct functions which may and,
IAPS believes, should be performed separately in a school inspection
model.
2. IMPACT OF
INSPECTION PROCESS
ON SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT
Inspection, in its broadest sense, if delivered effectively,
can be a central tool for school improvement. However, IAPS would
argue that, because monitoring compliance and school improvement
are very different exercises, these should be undertaken separately.
Whilst IAPS recognises the need for compliance to be monitored
and fully supports this as a mandatory activity, it would argue
that schools should be able to commission a school improvement
visit to suit their individual needs both in respect of focus
and timing.
3. WEIGHT GIVEN
TO FACTORS
IN INSPECTION
PROCESS
Inspection as a vehicle for monitoring compliance
should be mandatory and a three-year cycle should be sufficient
to achieve this. IAPS believes that the inspection should take
the form of a compliance audit, supported by a data -rich and
more focused SEF submitted in advance, and should normally require
just one inspector for one day. Assuming that a school's compliance
audit is satisfactorily completed, school improvement should carry
more weight, although IAPS would argue it should be within the
gift of the school to identify, through its own self evaluation,
what form this should take and when it should take place. IAPS
does not regard school improvement as optional and would seek
to make investment in this an expectation of membership; however,
it believes that, to impose a model and cycle of school improvement
may detract from its effectiveness.
4. CONSISTENCY
OF QUALITY
IAPS has evidence that there are inconsistent judgements
made by inspectors and some schools find themselves wanting to
challenge the grade boundaries. To create a model where one could
guarantee consistency of judgement would be complex and hugely
expensive. IAPS proposes that, for the model of compliance audit
outlined above, there should be no qualitative grades. Instead,
like an MOT for a car, the school either passes or fails. A benchmark
should be set, above which schools would be deemed to be satisfactory
and below which they would trigger a much fuller diagnostic inspection
at their own cost.
5. INSPECTION
OF ALL
ORGANISATIONS BY
A SINGLE
INSPECTORATE
IAPS believes strongly in the value of choice. It
would support its members in choosing a recognised inspectorate
of their choice, suited to their individual requirements.
October 2010
| 
