Memorandum submitted by SCORE
ABOUT SCORE
SCORE is a partnership of six organisations, which
aims to improve science education in UK schools and colleges by
supporting the development and implementation of effective education
policy. The partnership is currently chaired by Professor Graham
Hutchings FRS and comprises the Association for Science Education,
Institute of Physics, Royal Society, Royal Society of Chemistry,
Science Council and Society of Biology.
The SCORE partnership welcomes the opportunity to
submit a response to the House of Commons Education Committee
Inquiry on the role and purpose of Ofsted. Our response highlights
the importance of subject specific inspections as part of the
role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism. The
response strongly recommends that:
— Ofsted
continues as an inspection system which is able to hold schools
and colleges to account. However it should shift its emphasis
more towards improving teaching and learning in both the inspected
schools and colleges and across the system as a whole, including
initial teacher education (ITE). Effective Ofsted inspections
of ITE are crucial to ensure (and enhance) the impact of a high
quality workforce.
— Ofsted
increases the number of subject specific inspections to provide
statistically useful data on the impact of policies, structures
and initiatives in school departments.
— The
inspection process is drawn from a wide range of evidence, including
subject specific inspections and should not focus exclusively
on very narrow measures (such as 5 A*-C at GCSE).
— Ofsted
inspections provide a national, strategic view of the teaching
and learning of schools and colleges. This is increasingly important
in an environment where schools and colleges are experiencing
a higher level of independence. For this reason, SCORE recommends
all schools are subject to continued and regular inspection regardless
of their previous performance ratings.
THE PURPOSES
OF INSPECTION
1. The education system, and its inspection infrastructure,
should be designed to help children's learning. We need an inspection
system which still holds schools to account but also shifts its
emphasis to improving teaching and learning in both the inspected
schools and colleges and across the system as a whole.
2. The case for a direct link between the present
system of inspection and an improvement in children's learning
has yet to be made. Some schools and colleges identified as failing
have gone on to improve, but others have not. Some schools and
colleges which have been identified as good have then got worse.
3. It is Ofsted's role to carry out rigorous,
fair and representative inspections and, based on the evidence
from these inspections, provide qualitative and quantitative feedback
to schools and colleges that improve their teaching and learning.
Furthermore, Ofsted should collect sufficient evidence at both
subject and institutional level across the education system to
find and disseminate good practice and to inform policy.
4. In an environment where more schools and colleges
are experiencing a higher level of independence, it is particularly
important that there is a national, strategic view and measure
of the quality of teaching and learning in schools and colleges.
In particular, we feel that all schools should be subject to continued
and regular inspection regardless of their previous performance
ratings.
The impact of the inspection process on school
improvement
5. Carrying out subject specific inspections
as part of Ofsted's remit is essential, and should continue in
order to help schools improve in specific areas. Ofsted currently
carries out subject specific inspections in order to write subject
reports, which should inform Government about whether the curriculum
and its teaching is effective, and indicate to schools what outstanding
practice looks like (for example, appropriate deployment of teachers
and a good balance of subject specialist teachers). The number
of these inspections should be increased to provide statistically
useful data on the impact of policies, structures and initiatives
in school departments. The need for this has increased with the
forthcoming abolition of the National Strategies and the role
they have played in collecting evidence and data from schools.
6. It would be useful to have clarification on
whether Ofsted will take on the role of data collection (as has
been assumed above). And, if not, how that data will be collected
in future.
7. Only 30 primary schools are visited for primary
science subject reports. This is the same level of visits the
foundation subjects receive. However, science is a core subject,
not a foundation subject. The other two core subjects (mathematics
and English) each have 45 school visits to inform their subject-specific
reports, which even then is not a statistically significant proportion
of schools to draw any firm conclusions from. If science is to
be considered a core subject in primary education, and we would
argue that it is, it should be treated similarly to mathematics
and English. With such small sample sizes, we can do no more than
treat the subject inspection reports as a series of interesting
case studies and this limits their effectiveness in improving
schools. Ofsted declares that it is serious about subject work.
The small sample of schools inspected in subject inspections would
indicate otherwise.
8. Effective Ofsted inspections of initial teacher
education are crucial to ensure (and enhance) the impact of a
high quality workforce.
9. We strongly support the Select Committee's
recommendation that only schools that participate in a training
partnership should be awarded the top grade in Ofsted inspection.
We would like to see this extended to the department level for
large departments (which will include science) in department reports.
Furthermore, Ofsted should inspect the quality of support offered
to trainees by their school-based mentors; currently, the existence
and training of these mentors is checked by Ofsted when they inspect
ITE establishments; and the quality of teaching is inspected in
the schools. However, the quality of the mentoring provision for
trainees in schools is slipping through the net.
10. In their inspections of ITE providers in
the sciences, Ofsted should note the balance in the number of
places offered for trainees in the different sciences. On the
basis of this information providers should be encouraged by funders
to provide at least as many places for physics and chemistry as
for biology and, where possible, ITE establishments should be
encouraged to take more physics trainees to try to redress the
imbalance in teacher specialisms within the workforce.
The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its
work
11. Inspection can be used to set aspirational
goals for schools, helping them to progress and eventually become
good or outstanding schools. Subject specific standards should
be informed by dialogue with appropriate stakeholders. SCORE partners
welcomed the opportunity to contribute to Ofsted's recent subject
specific inspection guidance consultation. This has ensured that
evidence and experience provided by the subject communities is
directly available to inspectors and schools. For science, this
includes reporting on laboratory facilities and resources, progression
routes available to (and taken by) students and the qualifications
and deployment of the workforce (including the spread and use
of subject specialists).
12. SCORE supports renewed emphasis on a scientific
approach to inspection, ensuring that inspectors are rigorous
and methodical in their approach, including the support of subjective
judgements with evidence. With respect to classroom practice,
inspectors should be trusted to recognise good teaching and learning
when they see it and be given the freedom to credit it. They should
not require schools to be strictly bound by a rigorous framework
of criteria that define what constitutes good and effective practice.
13. The subject inspectors within Ofsted are
often hugely knowledgeable. Their expertise is underused in terms
of helping teachers move forward. Whilst we understand that the
number of speaking engagements a subject officer can undertake
each year are limited, meetings with teachers are excellent opportunities
for Ofsted to use their knowledge to promote outstanding practice,
to take the challenge to others, point teachers in the right direction
of approved resources and to promote genuine dialogue about improving
science practice. Ofsted should enable and encourage this to happen
more often.
The consistency and quality of inspection teams
in the Ofsted inspection process
14. Inspection teams should have access to subject
specific professional development opportunities, to ensure that
they have up-to-date awareness of their own subject and the best
methods for inspecting its teaching. Often data is explained in
ways that conflict with research evidence or interpretations assume
a particular theoretical stance. These theoretical assumptions
about learning, learners, knowledge and pedagogy need to be explicit
and if possible alternative perspectives considered. This requires
professional development related to education more widely.
15. If Ofsted itself does not currently have
the expertise or resources to ensure that its inspections are
fully valid and reliable, then there may well be a case for greater
parliamentary scrutiny of the organisation to ensure that this
happens.
The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability
mechanism
16. Ofsted has an important role in accountability
at the school level. The inspection process needs to draw on a
wide range of evidence, including subject specific inspections.
The relentless focus on very narrow measures (such as 5 A*-C at
GCSE) by Ofsted and other agencies, has had a negative effect
on teaching and learning and distorted the assessment system.
The data from qualifications, which is currently used with a dual
purpose (assessing schools as well as their students) should be
replaced - or at least balanced - with other evidence and considered
in more sophisticated ways. For example, overall measures of
achievement often referred to in Ofsted subject reports should
be examined in relation to sub-group performance by grade distribution,
again taking careful account of the representativeness of the
students who take up particular subjects. Otherwise teachers
will continue to focus on improving achievement in a limited number
of high stakes assessments. This sort of approach does not lead
to better learning and deeper understanding but often a search
for the easiest exam and drilling students to pass the test in
order to satisfy the league tables.
17. Ofsted must distinguish in its work between
accountability and improvement. A school's accountability should
not be affected by factors over which it has no control, for example
its intake or resourcing.
18. As the diversity of the school system increases,
and there is also an increase in autonomy for schools, Ofsted's
role in accountability needs to be clear. All pupils should have
access to a broad and balanced science curriculum with appropriate
pathways to vocational and academic qualifications. Ofsted's role
in ensuring that this is taking place is at present unclear.
October 2010
| 
