Memorandum submitted by Westminster City
Council
1. What Should Be The Purpose Of Inspection?
1.1 Westminster is a high performing local authority.
Within Westminster there are 8 secondary schools, 40 primary schools,
14 nursery schools, 8 Sixth forms, 2 special schools, 2 pupil
referral units, over 180 childcare providers, including childminders,
and 3 further education/tertiary providers. In December 2009,
the Council was rated as having Children Services which performed
well. Despite this since 2009 the Council and schools within the
City of Westminster have been subject to inspection over 50 times.
1.2 We recognise the importance of high quality
services across the board - education, adoption, fostering, social
care and safeguarding. However, we consider that the current Ofsted
regime has become unduly bureaucratic and burdensome. Inspected
agencies and services are required to provide voluminous amounts
of data and information for inspectors but receive minimal feedback
via Ofsted reports.
1.3 We believe that the purpose of inspection
is very straightforward. It should be to:
— To
improve outcomes for children, families and learners through ensuring
the effectiveness and standards of services provided.
— To
ensure appropriate standards and quality of provision for all
users
— To
advise where there are shortfalls in service provision and identify
how these may be improved
These three objectives are consistent for all inspected
provision. In relation to schools the major focus should be on
school improvement and ensuring educational standards. Our concerns
around suitable accountability mechanisms, particularly relating
to schools, are covered under question 7.
1.4 Westminster does not support an unduly onerous
inspection regime. The amount of tick boxing and form filling
that currently accompanies inspections of any service has over-ridden
what the real purpose should be - to ensure quality services are
being delivered to all and to promote and support improvement
in these services. To do this inspection needs to be as active
as possible rather than a paper-driven exercise. This means spending
as much time as possible with frontline services and for education
providers, in the classroom, assessing the quality of teaching
and learning experience.
1.5 We are supportive of the move for those schools
categorised as good or outstanding to be subject to a reduced
inspection regime. This must be supported by an adequate trigger
mechanism when there are concerns about performance, safeguarding
or welfare. With the abolition of CAA we would like guidance
on the future of the annual local authority performance profiles.
One alternative could be to introduce a peer review system. This
would allow high performing local authorities to review performance
of others and support and facilitate improvement.
2. The Impact Of The Inspection Regime On
School Improvement
2.1 An effective inspection regime is an integral
part of school improvement. Headteachers in Westminster report
to the Council that they consider inspections to generally be
constructive and contribute towards school improvement. Useful
guidance, identification of key issues and areas for improvement
are usually clearly set out and follow up support is usually good.
For schools, the final categorisations used are thought to be
clear, easy to understand and effective.
2.2 However, to improve the impact of inspection
we would suggest reducing the scope of inspections to make them
more targeted. For example, school inspections should focus on
pupil progress, development and attainment - for most inspection
teams this is where there expertise lies. At the moment, the breadth
of inspection is considerable and includes considering these aspects
in addition to the safeguarding agenda. Given the importance and
complex nature of safeguarding, we consider that it may be appropriate
to commission specialist inspectors to carry out this aspect of
the inspection.
2.3 The impact of inspections could be further
enhanced by introducing differentiated inspection frameworks.
The current framework is too generic and does not acknowledge
the differences between primary, secondary and specialist provision.
We would support a switch to an inspection framework which included
phase specific as well as generic sections.
3. The Performance Of Ofsted In Carrying Out
Its Work
3.1 For the majority of Children's Services,
Ofsted has become a very blunt instrument. Our frontline staff
and managers have found the performance of Ofsted to be variable.
Performance is largely dependent on the quality of the lead inspector
or inspection team. Inspections tend to be carried out using rigid
frameworks with little dialogue or negotiation around findings.
Although frameworks are rigid, the areas focused on by an inspection
team can be skewed by different priorities or areas of interest
making final reports unbalanced. For example, in an inspection
of fostering households, an excessive focus on health and safety
checks led to a recommendation that already extensive questions
should be rewritten to include reference to ceremonial swords.
3.2 Inspectors are felt to have a lack of hands
on experience of service delivery and a lack of familiarity with
local issues. One suggested improvement would be to have locality
based inspectorate teams who would have a good understanding of
local area and issues faced. This would also allow better relationships
to be developed with local communities and stakeholders and improve
the quality and range of information provided to inspectors.
3.3 The generic nature of surveys and forms used
is also a cause for concern. Surveys produced for service users
often do not bear any relevance to the work under scrutiny and
cannot be adapted to reflect the way services are set up at a
local level.
3.4 We also feel that the quality of the final
reports produced by Ofsted can be very variable and that the work
of Ofsted does not 'promote and support improvement'. There is
an imbalance between the amount of data and supporting paperwork
which agencies and providers are asked to produce and the quality
and rigour of final reports. Dialogue around final reports is
only permitted on factual inaccuracies. We would support greater
engagement between inspectors and inspected services - this should
help to improve the quality and usefulness of the final report
and target improvement work successfully.
3.5 The current inspection regime does not seem
to appropriately reward innovation particularly in social care
services. For example, Westminster has pioneered a new child protection
model in which unqualified social work assistants are used to
reduce the bureaucratic burden on frontline social workers and
allow qualified social workers to undertake more direct work with
children and families. Although this innovative approach has been
recognised as good practice by the Munro Review, this would not
be reflected in the findings of an Ofsted Inspection.
3.6 The recently introduced changes to categorisation
have created confusion for those who are being inspected as well
as for parents, children and service users. Westminster supports
a drive to improve standards but the new framework has not been
communicated well or made it easier for children, parents and
service users to consider the quality of services being delivered
to them.
3.7 In relation to school inspections, performance
would be improved and costs reduced if inspection teams worked
more closely with local authorities to ensure appropriate evidence
and transparency. However, the quality of inspectors in this area
is felt to have improved and head teachers generally report that
they find inspections constructive. The two day inspection window
only permits a snapshot of the school, therefore it is vital that
inspection teams are of good quality and that there is a health
level of dialogue with all those connected to the school. Costs
could potentially be reduced through the involving local authorities
in helping to supply evidence and making more use of local authority
school categories.
3.8 The current complaints procedure does not
work well. Complaints about Ofsted are not followed up with enough
rigour and there is a lack of flexibility in the system. If a
formal complaint is lodged it goes directly to the contracted
company and it is their responsibility to consider and pass on.
In our experience complaints have not always been addressed or
responded to with appropriate speed or depth.
3.9 In terms of ongoing evaluation of their
own performance, we feel this is an area where Ofsted could improve
considerably. There is a lack of ongoing monitoring and a lack
of opportunity for schools or providers to give feedback on Ofsted
inspections and the quality of contractors. Greater weight could
be given to feedback forms for schools filled out after inspections.
4. The Consistency And Quality Of Inspection
Teams In The Ofsted Inspection Process
4.1 As addressed in section 3, the Council has
concerns about the consistency and quality of inspections. Interpretation
of the inspection framework is variable and tends to be driven
by the focus of the lead inspector. Headteachers have reported
that the quality of inspectors is improving but this is not necessarily
reflected across Children's Services.
4.2 Arranging inspections is time consuming
and places a significant amount of stress on the service in addition
to their business as usual activities. Short notice inspections
are sensible approach to reducing the burden placed on providers
but need to be matched by high quality inspection teams and preparations
from Ofsted. During one recent inspection of a council service
the inspection began with two inspectors, one then withdrew and
was replaced by two others, two more then withdrew so the inspection
concluded with a single inspector. Inspected services need to
be dealt with in a professional manner and such inconsistency
adds unnecessary stress and uncertainty.
5. The Weight Given To Different Factors Within
The Inspection Process
5.1 Some services, such as fostering and adoption,
are highly regulated and highly technical. We have concerns that
inspectors can be unduly influenced by the latest fad or training
course they have attended and as such can over-emphasise the importance
of particular aspects.
5.2 In relation to schools, as a Council we wholeheartedly
support improvement in attainment - we have committed to supporting
schools to raise attainment so that 75% are achieving 5 A*-C grades,
including English and Maths at GCSE level by 2012. To do this,
from this year, we have given each secondary school 60k to use
as they wish to help them achieve this. Yet we recognise that
the quality of teaching is fundamental to this and should underpin
the inspection process. Inspections should also focus on pupil
progress and achievement in addition to attainment. More focus
could be given to Leadership and Management and social development
of pupils, particularly in schools where problems may have been
identified. Focus on Every Child Matters outcomes could be reduced.
5.3 As previously mentioned there is rightly
a focus on safeguarding in all types of inspection. To ensure
the effectiveness of inspection, particularly in schools, Ofsted
should consider employing specialist inspectors to carry out these
aspects of inspection.
6. Whether Inspection Of All Organisations, Settings
And Services To Support Children's Learning And Welfare Is Best
Conducted By A Single Inspectorate
6.1 We are yet to be convinced that a single
inspectorate is the best arrangement for inspection of all services
and settings relating to children's welfare and learning. This
is borne out by our concerns with the quality and focus of the
inspection teams particularly in non-education settings. We believe
that the current regime lacks pragmatism, requisite hands on experience,
and an appreciation of local context. Locality based inspectorates
may help to improve the quality of inspection. Better use of other
evidence bases either held by local authorities or other relevant
bodies and improved engagement either via meetings or surveys
with local stakeholders, would also help to provide improved local
accountability.
6.2 Furthermore, inspection must be linked to
a wider recognition of the importance of transparency. In Westminster,
we are introducing our own 'school report cards' to provide as
much information as possible to parents about their local schools
to help them make informed decisions. Information must be accessible
and easy to understand. The Ofsted website in its current format
does not support such transparency.
7. The Role Of Ofsted In Providing An Accountability
Mechanism For Schools Operating With Greater Autonomy
7.1 As a Council we fully support increasing
choice for parents and children as well as flexibility within
the school system. Within Westminster we have four academies and
North Westminster will host one of the first tranche of free schools,
starting in Sept 2011.
7.2 We have some cause for concern over the effectiveness
of Ofsted in providing an appropriate accountability mechanism
for schools which do operate with greater autonomy. From recent
experience we have found that acting upon the concerns of parents,
pupils, governors and staff, to help academies improve, can be
difficult in the current system. When a school is considered to
be failing, action needs to be swift and decisive. We feel that
this is not the case at the moment and more could be done to tap
into local intelligence and resources to support any intervention.
7.3 With good relationships with our schools
and local communities we quickly become aware when a school may
be experiencing problems. To ensure that Ofsted works as an effective
accountability mechanism, they should work closely, whether it
is formally or informally with local authorities as well as the
schools themselves, to ensure problems can be picked up as quickly
as possible and dealt with. The introduction of locality based
teams, which cover a cluster of authorities, would help to counteract
this problem.
October 2010
| 
