Memorandum submitted by Buckinghamshire
County Council
1. Executive Summary
1.1. Buckinghamshire County Council believes
that there continues to be a role for a system of validating school
effectiveness using an independent inspectorate and deploying
trained professionals to undertake this work. For the local authority,
inspection has become an important part of validating and holding
schools to account for their actions and their impact on children
and young people. The current system provides information for
parents and public and empowers school improvement. Inspection
of schools has a measure of public confidence in its external
and public validation of the quality of education being provided
and it would be difficult to see how Government could remove this
mechanism for parents to evaluate the quality of education provided
by schools and others in an area. Ofsted's independence from
government allows it to comment on local and national government
actions and politically sensitive subjects with a neutral focus
on the impact on outcomes for children and young people. This
independence is an important part of the confidence that consumers
of education have.
1.2. We would argue that the role of Ofsted cannot
be considered in isolation. Ofsted, SIPs, Local Authorities and
School Improvement Services all provide elements of support and
challenge to schools moving weak schools to satisfactory; good
schools to outstanding and challenging outstanding schools to
remain so. It may be considered that high performing schools could
thrive given a lighter touch and greater freedom, but if simultaneously
we withdraw or seriously reduce the focus or frequency of Ofsted,
reduce or remove the School Improvement Partner (SIP) and allow
schools to leave the local authority, then it could be a swing
from over-monitoring to total de-regulation. This also links to
a weakness in the outcomes to inspection when this local intelligence
held by the local authority is underused in helping to evaluate
schools.
1.3. We would also urge Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
(HMCI) to ensure that only those judgements key to the standards,
personal development and wellbeing of children and young people
and the efficient leadership and management of schools are allowed
to be a focus for the evaluation schedule and framework for inspection.
This submission has been written by the School Improvement
Service for Buckinghamshire County Council. Consultation with
school improvement advisers and school improvement partners who
are also Ofsted Inspectors gives this response an up-to-date understanding
of both the impact of inspection on schools and the process for
inspection.
Main Submission
In considering its submission Buckinghamshire County
Council has sought to respond under the headings in the remit
for the inquiry.
2. What the purposes of inspection should
be
2.1. The framework for inspection should continue
to provide a monitoring and evaluation function which enables
all those involved in outcomes for children and young people to
ensure that schools are transparently and equally compared and
evaluated.
2.2. To challenge underperformance and provide
a closely monitored process for inadequate schools.
2.3. Through subject and aspect inspections to
highlight and disseminate good practice.
2.4. Published reports help to celebrate the
hard work and professionalism of schools.
2.5. Inspection needs to continue to focus on
raising standards through a focus on data and tracking.
2.6. To continue to contribute to the statutory
obligation to provide for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural
outcomes pupils.
2.7. To provide a trusted, clear and universal
point of reference for parents and the local community on the
quality of education and care of children and young people regardless
of the setting, foundation or title of the provision.
2.8. To maintain its independence in providing
an external conversation with schools and schools leaders about
their schools.
3. The impact of the inspection process on
school improvement
3.1. Ofsted has been responsible for initiating
mechanisms in schools to provide for self-evaluation routines
and for measuring their impact on children and young people.
3.2. It has developed the focus and techniques
of classroom observation and the scrutiny of pupils' work to judge
the quality of teaching and teachers. This has subsequently transferred
to school leaders to use as an effective leadership and management
strategy.
3.3. Through a focus on outcome data, Ofsted
has introduced the idea of data collection and the development
of tracking to measure pupil progress.
3.4. It has provided high quality professional
development through engagement with independent inspectors who
bring a view of effective practice from a range of schools and
settings.
3.5. Inspection provides a focus for local authorities
on schools causing concern through categorisation and Section
Eight monitoring.
3.6. The reports by HMCI have informed and developed
governmental responses to education and children and young people.
4. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out
its work
4.1. The 2010 framework has honed practice to
ensure a suitable impact on school improvement.
4.2. The current schedule provides a highly effective
self-evaluation mechanism for schools which empowers school leaders
to evaluate and improve provision for children and young people.
4.3. The system is reliant on high quality inspectors
who bring a professional knowledge of learning and of children
to their work.
4.4. We
believe that Ofsted has been over-responsive to and driven by
governmental demands. This reduces the confidence schools have
in the process and the genuine impact on children and young people.
4.5. This also creates unintended outcomes where
the drive by central government does not translate into the school
setting or has unintended consequences on inspection outcomes;
for example the issues over the safeguarding judgement in the
early months of the 2010 schedule.
4.6. The continued thrust to provide efficient
and focused reports for a parental audience in a suitably short
timescale is good.
5. The consistency and quality of inspection
teams
5.1. The provision of a well-written and effective
schedule for inspection ensures schools' experiences are broadly
the same.
5.2. The provision of a shared data set (RAISEOnline)
ensures a sharper focus on outcomes for children and young people
by school leaders.
5.3. An external perspective through independent
inspectors ensures a level playing field for most schools.
5.4. Most inspections are well run.
5.5. A weakness is the lack of familiarity between
'team' members on inspection and a perceived need to establish
a relationship but this does ensure that teams evaluate accurately
and check against adherence to the framework.
5.6. There are concerns of the narrow evidence
base for judgements on small schools with a single inspector.
5.7. In a minority of cases contact with local
intelligence through the local authority has not been sought and
a few judgements do not hold up well to scrutiny across neighbouring
schools with similar performances.
6. The weight given to different factors within
the inspection process
6.1. Schools find the pre-inspection process
useful in the external view achieved through the production of
a Pre-Inspection Briefing.
6.2. We are content with the focus on outcomes
and the key skills of English and mathematics for older pupils.
6.3. Early Years and Foundation Stage outcomes
are intertwined with outcomes for well-being and Every Child Matters
(ECM) and we would be reluctant to see the focus for the evaluation
of very young pupils to become only those for academic measures.
6.4. It is important to continue to inspect the
whole child and to celebrate pupils' spiritual, moral, social
and cultural development.
6.5. The current focus on five ECM outcomes provides
a useful focus on the healthy and safe outcomes for pupils.
6.6. It is continues to be important for someone
to have the conversation with schools about the provision and
impact on pupils' healthy outcomes and understanding of risk.
6.7. Community engagement and the development
of economic wellbeing is less universally understood across the
various phases.
6.8. ECM5 is an insecure judgement
for very young pupils.
6.9. Some of the current judgements in Leadership
and Management are unnecessary as standalone judgements but could
be integrated as part of the wider expectations for leadership
and subsumed in the schedule's designations:
— Partnerships
could be subsumed in the judgement of engagement with parents
by an extension to the groups for engagement;
— Community
cohesion is not a primary function of schools;
— Equalities
and discrimination are a subset of the 'communicating ambition
judgement' for all leaders and managers;
— Value
for money rarely adds to the information on a school and frequently
simply matches the overall effectiveness grade.
6.10. We recognise the weighting given to safeguarding
but we were concerned at the inadequate manner of its introduction
as a 'limiting' judgement. The 'retreat' from the stated position
of not accepting any safeguarding errors within months of the
new framework launch undermined the importance of this area and
the overall confidence in Ofsted.
6.11. However we would be very concerned if safeguarding
was not a feature for the inspection of all schools, academies
and settings.
6.12. We are not clear of the need to provide
a separation of judgements for EYFS or the Sixth Form and feel
these could be folded into the common inspection schedule.
6.13. We are unclear why the progress for pupils
with SEND should be given precedence and a separate judgement
over, for example, EAL pupils or ethnic groups.
7. Whether inspection of all organisations,
settings and services to support children's learning and welfare
is best conducted by a single inspectorate
7.1. We believe that there should be a common
inspectorate for all settings which provide learning for children
and young people regardless of their foundation, phase or title.
8. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability
mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy
8.1. Schools' autonomy is greater than ever but
this brings with it a need to maintain a system for parents and
others to evaluate the effectiveness of provision across all types
of setting.
8.2. We would be very concerned at a system which
was designed to evaluate schools to different schedules or systems
because of their foundation. Parental confidence in a system for
comparing the education market is vital.
8.3. The continued process of inspectors visiting
schools remains an important part of holding them to account.
It is our experience that very few school leaders learned their
skills in ways other than in face-to-face conversations with education
professionals including advisers, SIPs and inspectors, who work
as ambassadors to disseminate effective practice. In-service
training is not sufficient and it is our experience that schools
do not improve without the double encouragement of professional
advice and the rigour of inspection.
October 2010
| 
