The role and performance of Ofsted - Education Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by National Children's Bureau (NCB)

SUMMARY

NCB recognises Ofsted's role in an equitable system to present graded judgments on school performance based on common criteria. NCB supports the prevailing view of school effectiveness that includes measures to promote pupil well-being and safeguarding.

NCB views the purpose of inspection as contributing to a school understanding better its strengths and weaknesses in order to improve its performance across the full range of functions. Ofsted plays a valuable role in supporting continuous school improvement. One purpose of its inspection function is to ensure accountability to Parliament.

In summary, NCB recommends:

—  Maintaining a role for Ofsted in making judgments on all schools whilst concentrating resources on the schools that are in greatest need.

—  A commitment to inspection that addresses the full range of functions, including attending to pupil well-being and safeguarding.

—  Exercising caution in allowing exemptions from inspection for high performing schools but, if this becomes necessary, publishing a definitive list of "trigger" factors that act as a safeguard against complacency if the frequency of inspection in such schools is to be reduced significantly.

—  Ensuring that all schools are subject to clear and transparent evaluation and monitoring if removed from the cycle of Ofsted inspection, and that such monitoring includes coverage of safety and well-being.

—  Retaining a single inspectorate to cover the services that support schools in helping children to learn.

Introduction

NCB is the leading support and development body for the children and young people's sector in England. We bring together agencies from the voluntary, statutory and private sectors, across early years, education, health, public care, youth justice, and other agencies meeting the needs of children, young people and families, including play. As such NCB endorses in full the submissions presented by Play England to the Select Committee.

In the terms of the role and purpose of Ofsted, NCB's areas of interest include:

—  The purpose of inspection

—  The role for Ofsted in assisting school improvement and impact

—  The advantages of a single inspectorate

1.  Purpose of Inspection

1.1  The role of the inspectorate is to measure the standard of education that our schools provide for all children according to universal criteria and report on it to Parliament in the public interest. NCB recognises that assessing school effectiveness, achieving accountability, and contributing through assessment to improving effectiveness are central processes of inspection. Currently that assessment is based on a universal set of criteria, acting as a comparative tool through which teachers and parents can analyse school performance. This presents two fundamental questions - what makes a school effective and how can an inspection adequately assess that effectiveness?

1.2   Since 2005, Ofsted's school inspection framework has reflected a widening view of school effectiveness, placing emphasis on so-called non-academic outcomes that play an essential role in raising standards of attainment, increasing attendance and ensuring the well-being of all children in school. These outcomes include well-being, community cohesion, equality of opportunity and play. These are the outcomes that enable children to more effectively access their education and, consequently, to learn better.

1.3  Recommendation: Inspection criteria should continue to take account of non-academic factors, in particular pupil well-being. NCB rejects the narrowing of the inspection focus called for in some quarters[28], seeing this as a reductionist and limiting view of education and of the process of schooling. Evidence shows that a pupil's well-being can have a profound effect on their capacity, readiness and willingness to learn. Schools are the most obvious "universal service" for children and young people, and provide an important base for access to a range of services that pupils might need, whether or not they are provided on-site[29]. School staff generally know their pupils well, can play a role in identifying issues that may be affecting that child's ability to learn and engage in their schooling, and can make sure those services are available to the pupil and, where appropriate, the pupil's family.

1.4  A Children, Schools and Families Select Committee report on School Accountability, published in April 2010, acknowledged the essential role that pupil well-being should play in inspection and urged Ofsted to develop enhanced qualitative measures to capture a broader range of school activity in order to better analyse and attribute pupil well-being.[30] NCB endorses the proposals put forward by the Select Committee to maintain the importance of well-being as a factor in inspection and urges the implementation of the recommendation to develop better means of assessing pupil well-being.

1.5  This focus on purely academic outcomes is also the justification behind proposals to stop altogether the inspection of high performing schools.[31] It is true that Ofsted can do more to encourage schools to be creative and produce evidence of self-evaluation, and that better performing schools should be allowed greater freedom to be innovative. However, NCB is not persuaded that this should be realised in a removal of these schools from the system of accountability. Ofsted should be permitted to adopt a suitably hands-off approach with schools that are performing well, whilst still retaining a clear and transparent monitoring role.

1.6  The proposed exemption for high performing schools presents three areas of concern for NCB:

a.  The potential loss of accountability for non-academic factors if removed as inspection categories.

b.  The removal entirely from Ofsted's accountability framework

c.  An inadequate safety net to trigger inspection if purely based on academic outcomes.

1.7  Recommendation: Outstanding schools should be inspected with reduced frequency but not be exempt entirely from inspection. NCB recognises and agrees with the conclusions from the Select Committee report discussed in paragraph 1.4 regarding the frequency of inspection and allocation of resources. The report concluded that the frequency of inspection should be in recognition of a school's current level of performance. Proposals to exempt outstanding schools ignore the continued need for accountability, even in outstanding schools, and centre their proposals purely on academic outcomes.[32]

1.8  NCB applauds the efforts of schools across the country to improve standards and gain outstanding status during inspections under difficult and challenging circumstances. However, NCB also recognises that school performance is not static and that accountability must stretch to a wide range of factors that takes into consideration pupil well-being, safety and community cohesion. An exemption from all inspection limits this accountability. Even more concerning, however, is the thinktank proposal that the trigger for inspection in a previously outstanding school would simply be linked to "performance data indicating a drop in standards."[33]

1.9  Recommendation: A comprehensive list of trigger factors must be in place in the event of exemption for outstanding schools. If these proposals were carried forward, it is feasible that a school that manages to maintain academic standards but is performing poorly in respect of pupil well-being would remain uninspected and unaccountable indefinitely. It is also feasible that the degree to which a drop should occur before inspection would allow a school's standards to slide significantly before an inspection would be triggered. If outstanding schools are to be exempt from inspection until a trigger point is met, NCB proposes that there should be a range of trigger factors in place including:

a.  A drop in academic standards - for example a drop of more than 5%

b.  The loss of a headteacher/member of senior management team (SMT) since outstanding schools are often dependent on having outstanding professionals in key posts

c.  High staff turnover

d.  Complaint lodged by parents - requiring some changes made to Ofsted's current complaints system where, in some [undelineated] circumstances, parental complaints can lead to an inspection being brought forward or, very rarely, an immediate inspection[34]

In addition, there needs to be ongoing support for developing self-evaluation processes and light monitoring of those.

1.10  Recommendation: Ofsted should continue to monitor any independent school inspection consultancy/agency. Exempt schools may also be given the option of employing independent consultants as part of a self-evaluation process. When comparing this proposal to the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) that currently manages inspections in some private schools, NCB is concerned about the implications of creating an unregulated school inspection sector. At present, the ISI is monitored by Ofsted, providing some level of regulation, guidance and consistency in the inspection process. If school inspection consultancies are given free rein to offer their services to schools outside of any accountability structure this removes any base level of consistent evaluation. The loss of this comparative tool would make it impossible for parents to make informed choices about a school's performance as each school would base its performance on contrasting sets of criteria. In the context of well-being or pupil safety, for example, there would be no guarantee that they were being evaluated correctly, if at all.

2.  School improvement and impact

2.1  NCB acknowledges the role that Ofsted plays in contributing to improving school effectiveness. In widening the view of what constitutes school effectiveness, Ofsted has ensured that academic outcomes are placed in context, with the positive impact of supporting factors such as well-being recognised. NCB also recognises the contribution that Ofsted can make in assisting schools to develop effective self-evaluation processes.

2.2  NCB also acknowledges that Ofsted does not necessarily have an active role to play in school improvement and welcomes the opportunity for schools to explore innovative and creative practices to raise and maintain standards. NCB supports the Select Committee's conclusions that schools should take ownership of their own improvement.3

2.3  Recommendation: Ofsted should encourage schools to be creative and produce evidence of self-evaluation processes. NCB has outlined in Section 1 its concerns about the removal of Ofsted as a monitoring body for high performing schools, and reiterates our belief that Ofsted has a role in contributing to effectiveness in all schools. The form that contribution takes should vary depending on a school's level of performance, but all schools should be assisted in developing internal mechanisms to identify problems and develop solutions. The goal for any school should be to reach a stage where Ofsted's role becomes one of light monitoring and support via embedded self-evaluation processes.

2.4  Recommendation: School improvement should not be based solely on academic outcomes. In particular, quality of teaching and learning should be given equal weight to test results and derivative measures. An essential role that Ofsted observation performs is to assess the atmosphere and environment in a school. In Section 1, we raised our concerns regarding a narrowing view of school effectiveness to focus purely on academic outcomes. The same is true for Ofsted's role in school improvement, particularly in schools performing poorly on pupil well-being or conversely in schools performing well in this area but struggling to improve their academic results. Narrowing the criteria for improvement will encourage schools to focus on attaining grades to the detriment of all other considerations, including the overall educational experience of their pupils.

3.  Single inspectorate

3.1  NCB believes that the services that support schools in helping children learn should continue to be monitored by a single inspectorate.

October 2010


28   For example: Fazackerley, A, Wolf, R and Massey, A (2010) Blocking the Best: obstacles to new, independent state schools. Policy Exchange. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/BLOCKING_THE_BEST-HDS_Web.pdf Back

29   Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children's Services (C4EO) (2009) Schools and communities research review 1: narrowing the gap in educational achievement and improving emotional resilience for children and young people with additional needs. http://www.c4eo.org.uk/themes/schools/educationalachievement/files/educational_achievement_research_review.pdf  Back

30   Children, Schools and Families Select Committee (2010) From Baker to Balls: the foundations of the education system. Ninth report of session 2009/10. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/422/422.pdf Back

31   Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, Times Education Supplement, May 28 2010 Back

32   Op cit Fazackerley, A, Wolf, R and Massey, A (2010)  Back

33   Ibid, p64 Back

34   Ofsted (2008) Complaints to Ofsted about schools: guidance for parents. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Complaints-to-Ofsted-about-schools-guidance-for-parents

Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 17 April 2011