Memorandum submitted by NSPCC
1. What should be the purposes of inspection (relating
not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services
under Ofsted's remit)?
1.1 The primary purposes of inspection are to provide
assurance on the standard of services/activities, and to contribute
to service improvement by identifying and disseminating good practice.
The assurance role includes the extent to which services/activities
meet the requirements of legislation and national guidance and
the needs of service users and also the extent to which they accord
with accepted best practice. Inspection will have a number of
stakeholders, for example: operational and senior managers; elected
representatives and the public, in particular children and young
people. Inspection findings are a key mechanism for holding public
services to account for their activities.
1.2 In order to discharge the assurance role, sufficient
resources are needed to review and interrogate key material such
as records, and to interview staff, service users and other stakeholders.
This triangulation provides a robust platform on which inspectors
can make judgements about the quality of services.
1.3 The principal advantage of a national inspectorate
is to ensure consistent standards and approaches to an issue.
However, for this to work well the application of standards has
to be consistent. This relies on the quality of the inspectors
and rigorous oversight of the inspection process. One of the
disadvantages of a national inspectorate is that it is unlikely
to have the resources to look in detail at local practice.
1.4 It is important to recognise that for any inspectorate
looking at services for children there should be a safeguarding
thread running through the assessment regardless of the setting
being inspected. Although school inspections are designed
to ensure the delivery of high quality teaching, learning and
leadership, importantly they also contain a focus on schools'
implementation of safeguarding policies and procedures and the
attainment of pupil well-being. Schools have a statutory duty
to promote the well-being of pupils
under Section 38 of the Education
and Inspection Act 2006 and to make
arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children
under Section 175 of the Education Act 2002. Holding
schools to account for their fulfilment of these duties is therefore
a key purpose of school inspection.
2. The impact of the inspection process on school
improvement
2.1 In relation to Ofsted inspection of schools,
the NSPCC's primary interest is the use of inspection to ensure
improvements in pupil safeguarding and child protection and the
associated impact on pupil attainment levels. We will therefore
limit our response to question two to an emphasis on how inspections
deliver improvements in relation to the safeguarding and well-being
of pupils.
2.2 The new Ofsted inspection framework, introduced
in September 2009, contained a strengthened emphasis on the evaluation
of pupil well-being.[40]
The NSPCC welcomes the focus on well-being and the fact that
schools must prioritise this as a requirement of inspection.
We consider that aiming to improve pupil well-being is of intrinsic
value to pupils. However, it is also extremely important in relation
to school improvement due to the direct link between children's
well-being and their attainment levels. NSPCC practitioners who
work with young people in schools have found that many children
and young people who are experiencing difficulties in their lives
often struggle to fully engage with learning until they have been
supported in dealing with their social and emotional problems.
The NSPCC's research, Problems at home, problems at school
demonstrated that maltreated children are at much higher risk
of poor academic performance, behavioural problems, bullying and
increased levels of truancy.[41]
For this reason, high quality pastoral care and teaching about
personal well-being through the Personal, Social, Health and Economic
Education (PSHE) curriculum can have a positive impact upon a
range of outcomes including on attainment levels.[42]
2.3 The NSPCC has concerns about the contents of
a letter from the Secretary of State for Education to Christine
Gilbert on the 28 September 2010 in which he outlined the intention
to slim down the inspection framework, including a reduced focus
on 'peripheral issues' such as pupil well-being.[43]
We consider that the emphasis on well-being in the inspection
framework is essential to improving educational outcomes across
the board as well as improving the life chances of the most vulnerable
children and young people and thus should not be regarded as 'peripheral.'
'Limiting' judgements
2.4 The new Ofsted inspection framework introduced
a 'limiting judgement' on 'safeguarding.' This means that if
schools fail to take measures to ensure pupils are kept safe then
this will directly affect the judgement of their overall effectiveness.[44]
An inspection of safeguarding includes an examination of whether
child protection and safeguarding policies, strategies and procedures
are in place, whether the school has a designated member of staff
with responsibility for child protection, whether staff receive
training in child protection, whether the school responds appropriately
to child protection concerns and whether pre-employment checking
of staff is carried out consistently.
2.5 The NSPCC strongly supported the introduction
of the limiting judgement on safeguarding. We would be extremely
concerned about any plans to remove this element of the Ofsted
inspection as we consider that this is a key mechanism to hold
schools to account in this area, ensuring that school leaders
maintain a clear focus on child protection. In 2009, Ofsted's
Annual Report stated, "The inspection of safeguarding remains
a high priority for Ofsted, in judging both the extent to which
pupils feel safe and whether procedures for safeguarding them
meet requirements."[45]
As Working Together states, education staff have a crucial
role in identifying and responding to possible abuse or neglect.[46]
Retaining this requirement through inspection helps to ensure
that all schools take at least take the minimum steps required
in relation to safeguarding children.
2.6 We are aware that policy discussions on the use
of limiting judgements have so far focused on the rare occasions
where inspectors have been over-zealous in their application of
the new criteria.[47]
Our Education Advisors are also aware that there are many misleading
'myths' about how the new limiting judgement on safeguarding operates,
such as the supposed case where a school failed an inspection
because inspectors were offered coffee before their identities
were checked.[48]
However, we consider that this highlights that some inspectors
might require additional training as they adapt to the new inspection
model, rather than justifying a wholesale deletion of this valuable
tool from the inspection framework. Furthermore, it is important
to note that in the vast majority of cases where safeguarding
arrangements are found to be inadequate, schools have also been
found to have significant weaknesses in other areas.[49]
This suggests that weaknesses in safeguarding can also be indicative
of other weaknesses in schools. We therefore consider that Ofsted
should continue to apply the limiting judgement in relation to
safeguarding.[50]
3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its
work
3.1 This is not an area of expertise for the NSPCC.
4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams
in the Ofsted inspection process
4.1 This is not an area of expertise for the NSPCC.
5. The weight given to different factors within
the inspection process
5.1 In recent years a sense has developed that a
disproportionate amount of time and resource is given to inspection,
that the process has been too driven by the attainment of targets
and that this has been at some cost to investment in improved
frontline services, and very much to the detriment of the confidence
and morale of frontline staff. The call has been for an increased
emphasis on peer review and self-assessment to lessen what has
become known as "… the burden …" of inspection.[51]
These matters are addressed in more detail below.
5.2 In this respect, there are a number of points
we wish to draw to the attention of the Committee. First, we
consider there is a need to reflect on the conduct and culture
of inspections of social care, which are "now … motivated
by a fear of failure and not the conditions for success."[52]
Certainly, for those being inspected the process seems to have
become an exercise in damage limitation rather than a desire to
continuously improve.
5.3 Secondly, performance management measurements
tend towards over-bureaucratisation for both inspectors and those
being inspected, yet Local Authorities are punished for poor statistical
outcomes, and this, unsurprisingly, inculcates an unhealthy obsession
with looking statistically sound. The Association of Directors
of Children's Services (ADCS) has commented: "The perceived
punitive effects and the impact of judgements on services in terms
of the local media and political response are in danger of creating
a climate whereby the inspected manage for inspection rather than
managing for quality and outcomes for children and young people."[53]
Triangulation methods of inspection
5.4 Statistics, however, do not necessarily tell
a reliable story. A good statistical out-turn is not necessarily
supported by a similar 'story' in conversations with practitioners
and service users; similarly a poor statistical out-turn may be
at odds with their experiences, which may be good. In this respect
we welcome the adoption of methods of triangulation in inspections
of safeguarding and looked after children, where combining the
information derived from files, meetings with service users and
staff will increase the credibility and validity of the results.[54]
Such methods should, we consider, form a significant element
of all inspections, such that, for example, safeguarding and early
intervention might be triangulated by examination of implementation
of the multi-agency assessment tool, the Common Assessment Framework
(CAF), across a range of agencies and institutions.
5.5 The additional merit of wider adoption of triangulation
methods in inspection processes is the light they throw on any
discrepancies in accounts of services, providing inspectors with
a lens through which to identify those areas requiring further
scrutiny. Such methods should form a key element of both the
process of inspection and the subsequent grading.
5.6 Furthermore, consideration should be given to
the development of a more sensitive set of indicators. For example,
one indicator currently in use concerns the percentage of referrals
to children's social care which proceed to initial assessment.
This is open to local interpretation and variation in thresholds.
However, this does not mean that the information, if better defined
and refined, would not be helpful in understanding how concerns
are dealt with by local agencies. There are two ways in which
we recommend that the data could be made more useful. These are:
(i) Describing a wider range of early responses,
for example: completing a CAF; talking to another agency/worker;
contacting a family member; talking to parents; talking to/seeing
the child, or
(ii) A tighter definition of 'initial assessment'.
For children already within the child protection
system, the percentage of agreed recommendations in child protection
plans that have been actioned within six months might also be
an instructive indicator.
5.7 Thirdly, while self assessment is important for
internal use and improvement, and as part of a learning process
which actively involves participants and provides them with the
opportunity to reflect on organisational and individual practice
issues, we do not consider it provides a sufficient level of transparency
and independent assurance for service users or the wider public
in the absence of appropriate scrutiny and challenge from inspectors.
5.8 The reductionist approach of much self-assessment,
too often weighted towards quantitative analysis, based on closed
questions and with no significant supporting evidence, provides
no assurance as to the quality of processes, structures or services
for children and young people.
Peer review
5.9 In addition, the merits of peer review should
be examined. A model adopted from academic and clinical communities
(particularly in respect of the alleged objective veracity of
scientific claims), peer review is intended to examine practice
in a challenging but supportive way. Rooted in the assertion
that "a greater emphasis on self evaluation and peer challenge
with an attendant reduction in the burden of performance monitoring
and inspection by central government and inspectorates"[55]
will deliver "sector-led improvement" (ibid), peer review
is expected to identify strengths and weaknesses and provide recommendations
for improvement. The assumption is that peer review provides
some assurance as to quality. Yet experience in other contexts
suggests that peer review can be "… biased, unjust,
unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually
ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."[56]
In view of this, we consider that before peer review is embraced
too widely or enthusiastically it should, at the very least, be
subjected to rigorous independent evaluation.
5.10 Finally, we understand how major, infrequent
inspections provoke stress at all levels. We also understand
that they are costly exercises and as a set-piece tri-annual exercise,
for which two weeks notice is provided, are unlikely to provide
a 'warts and all' insight into the quality of local governance
and services. Unannounced inspections, on the other hand, require
no preparation, take significantly less time and resource and
provide a picture of day to day practice at the most vulnerable
point for children's services, namely: the front door. It is
true that such inspections will provide a 'snapshot'. It may
be a bad day. However, unfair though it may seem, and much though
those being inspected might protest, the truth is that services
need to stand up to scrutiny every day not just on the good ones.
5.11 We hope that the programme of annual unannounced
inspections of safeguarding, looked-after-children, contact, referral
and assessment will be maintained and that consideration is given
to expanding this model to include a wider range of children's
and other services. We consider the triangulation method discussed
above should be utilised in the model, and that key performance
measurements should be revised to encourage collaboration, partnership
work and, most importantly, service-user and wider public satisfaction
with services. As has been observed, "Just looking at the
information doesn't tell you anything about the experience of
the children and their families. You have to start with their
experience of services."[57]
6. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings,
and services to support children's learning and welfare is conducted
by a single inspectorate
6.1 Clearly the key outcome for any public service
must be the quality of the service, as experienced by the people
who use it and as perceived by the wider public who are asked
to pay for it. We consider, therefore, that the key focus of
inspection should be the experiences of children, young people
and families and the extent to which services are meeting their
welfare and protection needs.
6.2 Inspection should also include scrutiny of arrangements
between adult and children's services where transition, for example,
remains a problematic area for many young people, particularly
those who are disabled, and/or in need of continuing health (including
mental health) care services. In addition, the risks posed to
children living in families experiencing domestic violence, substance
misuse or mental health problems are well rehearsed "…
and it is the combination of these factors which is particularly
toxic"[58].
Inspectors might also be tasked, then, with scrutinising the
quality of information that passes between adult and children's
services in respect of the social care needs of adults that may
place children at risk.
6.3 Expertise is clearly of fundamental importance
to the quality of inspection. In recent years Ofsted has been
inhibited by not having senior experience. Indeed, it did not
appoint anyone in a senior position with a social care background
until very recently.[59]
This want of appropriate expertise must be addressed within any
revised inspection model.
6.4 Consideration should also be given to the role
of inspectors in the learning and improvement process. The former
Commission for Social Care Improvement (CSCI) had a strong focus
on supporting improvement in practice, maintaining an ongoing
relationship with services proportionate to their need to improve.
Thus the learning process was nurtured, good practice could be
shared and performance properly monitored. This is not a role
Ofsted has sustained, and we consider that reinstating it would
be beneficial, particularly in a period of significant financial
constraint which is likely to have an impact on the numbers of
children and young people requiring additional support, at a time
when the threshold for services may be under considerable pressure.
6.5 Finally, our experience of involving children
and young people in the inspection process has been a wholly positive
one, on both sides of the inspection process. The NSPCC not only
benchmarks services by talking to children and young people who
use them, but has also found that appointing children and young
people to inspection teams as lay inspectors provides additional
rigour to the inspection process itself bringing the benefits
of a fresh perspective (including challenging inspection approaches
and methodology by asking 'obvious' questions such as 'why do
we do it this way'); enables a young person's view to be gained
on specific aspects of practice (for example, how well are children
and young people informed about and involved in work with them
and their families; is information provided in a child friendly/accessible
way); provides an opportunity for young service users to choose
to speak with another young person; and demonstrates to staff,
partner agencies and service users that we take the views and
involvement of young people seriously.
7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability
mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy
7.1 The NSPCC considers that new academies and 'free
schools' should continue to be subject to regular Ofsted inspections
to ensure that they are fulfilling their legal duties to safeguard
and promote the welfare of children and to promote pupil well-being.[60]
7.2 We are therefore very concerned that 'outstanding'
schools' will not be inspected unless a parent raises signifcant
concerns about a school, or the school's results become a cause
for concern.[61]
Further, we consider that a single outstanding judgement by Ofsted
is not a reliable predictor of future performance and should not
justify a lack of participation in Ofsted inspections. For example,
the Shireland Collegiate Academy in Birmingham was rated outstanding
by Ofsted but was subsequently failed by inspectors following
its conversion to academy status.[62]
7.3 Where Ofsted have identified weaknesses in a
school's performance following inspection, Local Authorities currently
play a key role in helping schools to improve. The Local Authority
can help to make a range of changes including appointing new governors,
creating interim executive boards, linking poorly performing with
well performing schools, or close, merge or otherwise re-organise
the school or request an Ofsted inspection.[63]
It is not clear who will discharge these functions once there
is a greater degree of autonomy for schools, and this should be
a key consideration as new inspection models are developed.
October 2010
40 Ofsted (2009) The evaluation
schedule for schools London: Ofsted Back
41
Mills, C (2004) Problems at home, Problems at school: The effects
of maltreatment in the home on children's functioning at school
London: NSPCC Back
42
See Blake, S and Plant, S (2005) Addressing inequalities and inclusion
through PSHE and Citizenship. London: National Children's Bureau;
Office of the Children's Commissioner (2005) Journeys: children
and young people talk about bullying. London: Office of the Children's
Commissioner and Harries, J (2006) Promoting Personal Safety in
PSHE. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Back
43
Letter from Education Secretary, Michael Gove, to Christine Gilbert
on the 28 September 2010. Back
44
Ofsted (2009) The framework for school inspection London: Ofsted Back
45
Ofsted Annual Report 2008/09 Back
46
See Paragraph 2.157 of Working Together to Safeguard Children
London: DCSF (2010) Back
47
Fazackerley, A; Wolf, R and Massey, A (2010) Blocking the best:
Obstacles to new, independent state schools London: Policy Exchange Back
48
Ofsted have no record that this incident actually happened. See:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us/FAQs/Safeguarding/ Back
49
Ofsted (2009) 'Inspection arrangements update for maintained schools'
in Ofsted News, Issue 15, December Back
50
Maintained schools are inspected under section 5 of the Education
Act 2005. Back
51
Local Government Association (LGA). (2010). Freedom to Lead:
Trust to Deliver - Consultation proposals http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/7789425.
Retrieved 7 October 2010 Back
52
Shoesmith, S (2010) Evidence to the Education Select Committee,
15 September 2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeduc/uc465-i/uc46501.htm.
Retrieved 7 October 2010. Back
53
ADCS (2009). Position paper on inspection http://www.adcs.org.uk/download/position-statements/november-09/ADCS-position-on-inspection.pdf.
Retrieved 7 October 2010. Back
54
Ofsted (2009). Inspections of safeguarding and looked after children
services: Framework for inspection and guidance for local authorities
and partners www.ofsted.gov.uk/.../Inspections%20of%20safeguarding%20and%20looked%20after%.
Retrieved 7 October 2010. Back
55
ADCS (2009). Position paper on inspection http://www.adcs.org.uk/download/position-statements/november-09/ADCS-position-on-inspection.pdf.
Retrieved 7 October 2010. Back
56
Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up".
MJA 172 (4): 148-9. PMID 10772580. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
Back
57
Dame Denise Platt, Evidence to the Children, Schools & Families,
20 January 2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/276i-ii/10012002.htm
Retrieved 7 October 2010. Back
58
Brandon et al (2010). Building on the Learning from Serious Case
Reviews: a two year analysis of child protection database notifications
2007-2009. DFE Research Report RR040, available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DFE-RR040-WEB.pdf
Retrieved 7 October 2010. Back
59
Dame Denise Platt, Evidence to the Children, Schools & Families,
20 January 2010, available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/276i-ii/10012002.htm
Retrieved 7 October 2010.
Back
60
Section 175 of the Education
Act 2002 and Section 38 of the
Education and Inspection Act 2006, respectively. Back
61
Michael Gove has announced that academy schools previously judged
outstanding will no longer be subject to routine school inspection,
see: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/academies/academiesfaq/a0063432/ofsted-inspections-faqs/
Back
62
The Gove Plan: Why so quiet Labour? The Independent, 30 May 2010 Back
63
Powers granted under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Back
| 
