Memorandum submitted by Carrie Dunne
1. If schools are to operate with greater autonomy,
with an independent inspection system focused on improving schools,
then the current work of Ofsted is not adequate. The changes to
the structure of Ofsted, and an increasingly generalised Ofsted
Framework, have allowed the inspection system to become too distracted
in its use of private contractors, too wide in its range of inspection
settings, too focused on compliance with central government policy
and too superficial in its quality of reporting. It is essential
that the role and performance of Ofsted are simplified and redefined
to ensure that it is fit for purpose, stable and more sharply
focused on its central function as the "Office for Standards
in Education".
2. As the Office for Standards in Education,
Children's Services and Skills (launched in 2007), Ofsted state
online that their work.
..touches the lives of millions of people in England
every day. One in every three people uses the services we inspect
or regulate, or the information we provide. 1
3. Such a statement immediately identifies the
worrying breadth of Ofsted's work which is described (on the same
webpage) as "extensive", spanning the "inspection
and regulation of children's services and inspection of education
and skills for learners of all ages" - a system that is now
very different from Ofsted's original structure, function and
purpose as the " Office for Standards in Education"
, created by the Education (Schools) Act of 1992.
4. It is worth taking the historical perspective
from the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010) about
Ofsted's origins to understand these differences and to recognise
Ofsted's impact on schools and schooling. Although Alexander (2010)
describes, with implied negativity, that Ofsted's creation was
a "deliberate attempt" to privatise school inspections,
it was the replacement of Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI) that
was seen, then (and now), as a major concern. (p.33)
5. Such a change from the use of HMI, who had
"previously offered central government officials advice [without
'fear or favour'] about the effects of government policy"
(ibid) to Ofsted, and their large number of private contractors,
was the "subject of considerable controversy" . However,
since 1992 the number of private contractors has decreased dramatically
(three now cover large geographical areas), HMI have been reintroduced
to carry out inspections and Ofsted has expanded to include, for
example, regulating Children's Services. From my own experience,
as an Ofsted inspector and as a contractor, such structural changes
have had significant effects on carrying out inspections as well
as producing major bureaucratic changes for managing inspections.
6. During 2001-2004, while working for an Ofsted
contractor, I was part of three separate tendering processes for
gaining a contract with Ofsted to inspect all school phases. On
each occasion a contract was won and by 2004 our quality with
Ofsted had improved and the number of inspections increased -
becoming one of the largest contractors in England with 350 inspections
per year. However, throughout this success, huge tensions existed
- tensions associated with maintaining the highest quality for
Ofsted (training inspectors, quality assuring inspectors, inspections,
reports and complying absolutely with small administrative procedures)
as well as making a growing and healthy profit as a private contractor.
As a consequence, such tensions created a real distraction away
from the work of inspection because of the need to satisfy the
administrative layers within Ofsted and the managerial layers
within the parent company. At times, I believe, working as a contractor
and employee of a private company caused unnecessary instability
for inspectors, the inspection process and ultimately schools.
7. However, since 1992, not only have there been
significant structural changes but also significant content changes
to the Ofsted Framework.
8. The original Framework contained the following
four main inspection functions (Education Act, 1992, chapter 8,
section 2):
— The
quality of education
— The
educational standards achieved
— The
efficient management of financial resources
— The
spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils.
9. Although these main functions continue to
characterise all inspections, they have since then increased in
number and broadened in their scope. For example, the functions
within the current Framework, used from September 2009, now include
the need to inspect "community cohesion" and "well-being"
(2009a, p 4). In addition, Ofsted also state that the 2009 Framework
"has the greatest impact possible on school improvement and
outcomes for children and young people" 2 - but,
crucially, the central remit for an "Office for Standards
in Education" is now difficult to identify in an increasingly
"issues-led" inspection process.
10. Ofsted justify the structural and Framework
changes as a direct consequence of national developments and legislative
changes (Ofsted, 2009b). For example, in the latest Ofsted report
for a Post16 Campus School (Appendix 1) it is very clear that
"The sexual health clinic is used well" yet the reader
has no idea how well students are being taught English or mathematics
or whether students are reaching good enough standards. Such an
issues-led process for inspection is a serious concern if parents
etc. wish to understand "the quality of education" and
"the educational standards achieved" . Therefore, serious
questions must be raised about Ofsted's breadth of work as well
as its independence in their attention to national initiatives.
11. Ofsted maintains its independence by declaring
that it provides "impartial information" to Parliament,3
however, as Alexander (2010) states, the effect of Ofsted remains
a "very powerful, though indirect, way of regulating the
system by 'policing' [schools'] compliance with national directives
and severely limiting high- or even medium-risk experimentation
with content or process" (p 33) - in other words, as an unintended
consequence, schools have become stifled by regulation. Such strong
criticism may be questioned, but the essence of this "policing"
is evident within the following comments from two secondary school
teachers:
"I am all in favour of accountability but the
modern teacher seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on
justifying themselves or learning the latest Ofsted inspired teaching
methods rather than simply teaching"
12. I've had to tolerate dozens of "Ofsted
says" statements over the years. Whether true or not, teachers
believe
(1) You must have a starter, body and plenary
to every lesson
(2) You must write your objectives on the board
(3) You must test your learning outcome at the
end of every lesson
And so on....
13. Rather than Ofsted being independent and
reliable4 in evaluating the work of schools, the teachers
clearly state that there is a perceived need to comply with a
set of predetermined criteria.
14. Taking mathematics as an example, these personal
experiences are backed up in a study by Brown et al (1998) who
questioned the extent to which the methods in the National Numeracy
Strategy were based on evidence about "what works".
The study drew a conclusion that 'many schools will adopt the
Strategy] so as to avoid criticism from Ofsted inspectors and
Local Education Authority (LEA) officials' (p 366). Most worryingly,
and a serious concern for the autonomy of schools, the work of
local authorities to act as almost agents for the National Strategies
was a recommendation by Ofsted's own evaluation of the Primary
National Strategies (2005):
"ensure that [local authority] primary strategy
managers have sufficient authority to exert appropriate influence
(p 3)
15. With this Ofsted directive in mind, my own
experience while working as a contractor with about 1000 inspectors,
caused me many times to question the reality of inspector independence
when many also worked in other areas of education eg as strategy
managers (mentioned above), Headteachers, Local Authority inspectors
(as I did myself), School Improvement Partners (SIPs) or as education
consultants employed by Ofsted contractors. Without disparaging
the work of many, many excellent inspectors, it is a concern that
needs raising and I have much sympathy with former HMI Colin Richardson
about the need to reinstate HMI as:
"a stand-alone independent, publicly funded
body who would report regularly to MPs and whose work would be
periodically reviewed by a commission including representatives
of all relevant stake-holders and drawing on the expertise of
inspectors, researchers and educationists' (Richardson, in Alexander,
2010, p 33).
16. My own experience of HMI through their monitoring
of inspections, inspectors and inspection reports, have found
them, on the whole, to be objective and pragmatic, keeping their
work focused on evaluating learning. However, for quite a number
of inspectors working for contractors, I often found that their
day job in advising schools became mixed with their occasional
job of inspecting schools. I recall regular guidance being distributed
to inspectors from Ofsted that informed them to be objective in
their observation of lessons and not to advocate particular teaching
methods. For example, Ofsted's Update 38 and Update 40 (no longer
available) warned inspectors that they should not expect to see
"three parts" to any lesson and reminded them that the
National Strategies were non-statutory (all very different from
Ofsted's own recommendations in 2005!) However, this guidance
was mostly ignored as LAs were putting pressure on all schools
to follow the National Strategies, and more recently Assessing
Pupils' Progress (APP, 2008) to make measurements about each
child's progress based on National Curriculum level descriptions.
It is not a surprise that in recent years teachers have not been
able to recognise which advice or documentation are statutory
and which are non-statutory - such is the fear of Ofsted and LAs.
17. Sergeant (2009) summarises her concerns about
Ofsted as an inspection process that ensures each school's compliance
with the latest government initiative (p.43), which are as Alexander
(2010) states "universally viewed as obligatory" (p.209)
- in other words, the content and the teaching methods are accepted,
without question, and enforced openly by Ofsted. This was also
a similar concern raised by a House of Commons Committee (2010a)
when discussing the "tick-box mentality" of inspection
- the current compliance culture is a serious problem.
18. Although it is very clear from the House
of Commons Select Committee transcripts (2010b) that Ofsted's
independence is essential (p.9), this independence in practice
does indeed need to be questioned. The current Ofsted Evaluation
Schedule (2009c) states clearly that inspectors evaluate "how
well teaching promotes learning" (p.31) which appears to
imply independence, but further comments from three primary school
teachers based on their discussions with inspectors during inspections,
would question this independence:
"The inspector said my lesson wasn't good because
I didn't have my learning objective on the board for all children
to see. The inspector didn't want to listen when I told her that
the objectives came out of the lesson".
"I was told that my class shouldn't sit in rows
- they should be sitting in groups".
"I spent too long at the beginning of the lesson
explaining something. She said that 10 minutes on the carpet is
long enough for Y1 children".
19. Such comments from teachers resonate with
the criticisms made by Alexander (2010) about the range of "principles"
of teaching which are "empirically questionable", and
"characteristics" of teaching which are "disappointingly
vague" listed in various DCSF documents (p.297). In other
words, inspectors appear to be drawing on a set of approved generalisations
to judge and advise schools for improving teaching and (most likely)
evidence of inspectors mixing their day job with their occasional
inspection job.
20. This concern about approved generalisations
about teaching can be found when examining the findings of a small
survey using fifty randomly chosen Ofsted inspection reports (November
2009). When studying the recommendations made by inspectors, the
idea of "challenging pupils" as a way of improving teaching
occurs in almost all of the reports without any detailed analysis
of what is meant by "challenge" in the main text of
the report. Inspectors would argue that the detail is given to
the school during the inspection but the lack of detail in reports
suggests that the reports themselves cannot be used for one of
their main functions - improving schools.
21. Using mathematics as an example once more,
the lack of detail to mathematics in individual school inspection
reports is a serious concern. When examining a series of reports
downloaded from the Ofsted website5 for any individual
school, the dramatic reduction in the reporting of mathematics
is clearly evident. For example, an inspection report written
in 2001 or 2003 contains a number of pages with a detailed evaluation
of the judgements inspectors have made about mathematics, such
as the learners' standards and their progress as well as the quality
of teaching. However, an inspection report written in 2009 lacks
the same detail (see tables a and b). In other words, inspection
reports are not providing enough information to improve schools
- the situation is no better for English!
Table A
JUDGEMENTS MADE ABOUT MATHEMATICS IN A PRIMARY
SCHOOL FOR 2001 AND 2009
| Standards | Progress
| Teaching | Leadership/Management
|
| 2009 | KS2: above average |
Good | No judgement | No judgement
|
| 2001 | KS1: average
KS2: average
| KS1: satisfactory
KS2: good | KS1: satisfactory
KS2: good
| good |
Table B
JUDGEMENTS MADE ABOUT MATHEMATICS IN A SECONDARY SCHOOL
FOR 2003 AND 2009
| Standards | Progress
| Teaching | Leadership/Management
|
| 2009 | KS3: No judgement
KS4:above average
| No judgement | No judgement
| No judgement |
| 2003 | A level: average
Current Y13: high
Further maths: high
| very good | very good |
good |
22. It would appear from these tables that between 2001 and
2009 Ofsted inspection teams have continued to report on learners'
standards. Although, the current Ofsted framework states that
one of its main functions is to improve schools through inspection
(2009a, p.2), and there cannot be any disagreement with the following
end note (28) from the Cabinet Office Report (2008):
...school results and inspection reports create public pressure
for improvement, and legitimacy for change when things are not
good enough.
23. However, it is in the nature of gathering the evidence
for judging improvement that raises further questions - the use
of data, based on tests, teacher assessments, tracking documents
(including the use of APP) is a further worrying and serious concern
illustrated by the following quote from a secondary school teacher:
"[Ofsted] base their judgements on school results, and causes
the over valuation of tests."
24. However, what is worse, is that the use of such data (based
on the National Curriculum level descriptions) has been responsible
for potentially putting a ceiling on learners' achievements as
illustrated in the following comment from a maths co-ordinator
during an inspection in 2009:
"When I had an interview with the inspector about maths
he questioned why children in Y4 were doing work that children
in other schools would do in Y6 in the Numeracy Strategy. He wasn't
very happy when I said it was because they could!"
25. In other words, what the inspector saw did not fit with
the national expectations.
26. Once again, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector warned, in her
2010 online guidance, Ofsted News6, that inspectors
should not make their judgements based on an analysis of test
and examination data alone. However, discussions in a House of
Commons Select Committee meeting, a month later, urged Ofsted
to "rebalance its inspection framework" because of the
"disproportionate use" made by inspection
teams of a school's results when judging a schools' effectiveness
(2010a, p.9). Such a strong focus on results ensures that their
link with Ofsted has significantly raised the test's and examination's
high stakes status exacerbating a fear of inspections by schools.
27. As a final example of Ofsted's focus on test results and
data, the report of an outstanding primary school, inspected in
2009, contains two main recommendations which focus their attention
even more closely on data and tracking processes which inevitably
increase the level of bureaucracy for the school (see Appendix
2). In other words, as described by Pollard's article in the Daily
Telegraph (May 2010), Ofsted appears to be "just another
arm of the [education] establishment" providing further evidence
of each schools' inability to innovate and, therefore, use their
professionalism....even for highly successful schools!
28. If, as the current 2009 Ofsted Framework states that,
one of the "essential functions" of inspection is for
parents to have informed choices about schools (p.2)
and that inspection aims to help users understand the findings
of an inspection and help to drive improvements (p.1) - all undoubtedly
worthy but these "essential functions" cannot be achieved
with the current inspection system. The original remit as the
"Office for Standards in Education" has lost its way
and, consequently, inspectors are too generalist, inspections
are too generalised and reports are too superficial. A review
to understand the purpose and nature of school inspection for
schools who will operate with more autonomy is, therefore, critical.
NOTES
1 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us/Working-for-Ofsted
2 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/Press-and-media/2009/June/New-inspection-system-to-
improve-outcomes-for-pupils/(language)/eng-GB
3, 4 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us
5 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/
6 http://ofstednews.ofsted.gov.uk/issue/35
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to simplify and redefine Ofsted's work as the "Office
for Standards in Education" and to recognise a new autonomy
for schools:
Create a new Ofsted structure
— The
current work of Ofsted is too wide - there needs to be a separation
of Welfare and Academic inspections. Ofsted should focus only
on Academic settings with a new inspectorate to focus only on
Welfare settings. To ensure school autonomy, the welfare aspects
in a school should be monitored by the school themselves (and
possibly LAs).
— The
current work of Ofsted and inspectors is not as independent as
it should be - there is a need to reconstitute an independent
HM Inspectorate to carry out school inspections and (quite separately)
carry out surveys for checking government initiatives.
Publish a new Ofsted Academic Framework for schools
— The
current Framework is too generalised - there needs to be a new
set of principles which recognises a school's autonomy so that
inspectors evaluate "outcomes" in relation to each school's
work rather than using a predetermined set of criteria to ensure
compliance.
— The
content of the current Framework is too broad - there needs to
be a sharper focus on school improvement by only evaluating the
following:
pupils' standards and achievement (their academic
achievement and their behaviour),
the quality of teaching,
the effectiveness of leadership (including impact
of the curriculum, CPD, finance and safety issues),
— There
are no clear analyses about learners' standards and achievement
in the current Framework - there needs to be a renewed focus for
inspectors' work by evaluating as few areas as possible:
Reading, writing, speaking and listening
Mathematics
How these subjects have an impact on other
areas of the curriculum
Importantly, after this change there needs to
be time for a new structure and Framework to settle so that there
is a real stability and a genuine confidence in the system.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (2010) (Ed.) Children, their world,
their education. Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge
Primary Review London: Routledge.
Brown, M, Askew, M, Baker, D, Denvir, H and Millett,
A. (1998) Is the National Numeracy Strategy research-based?
School of Education, King's College London BRITISH JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, ISSN 0007-1005 VOL. 46, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1998,
PP 362-385.
Cabinet Office (2008) Excellence and fairness: Achieving
world class public services HMSO.
DCSF (1999) National Numeracy Strategy Primary Strategy
- Mathematics Framework (2003/2006)
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk
DCSF (2008) Assessing Pupils' Progress (APP, 2008)
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/243338
Education(Schools) Act 1992 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920038_en_1
House of Commons (2010a) Children, Schools and Families
Committee School Accountability: Responses from the Government
and Ofsted to the First Report of the Committee, Session 2009-10,
Third Special Report of Session 2009-10, House of Commons, 22
March 2010
House of Commons (2010b) Children, Schools and Families
Committee (2010) From Baker to Balls: the foundations of the
education system, Ninth Report of Session 2009-10, House of
Commons, Formal Minutes 24 March 2010
Ofsted (2005) The national literacy and numeracy
strategies and the primary curriculum HMI 2395 London: Ofsted
Ofsted (2009a) The Framework for School Inspection:
The framework for school inspection in England under section 5
of the Education Act 2005, from September 2009 London: Ofsted
Ofsted (2009b), Talisman: Issue 78, Sept
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Newsletters/Back-issues/talisman/talisman-78
Ofsted (2009c) The Evaluation Schedule for Schools
London: Ofsted
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Evaluation-schedule-of-judgements-for-schools-inspected-under-section-five-of-the-Education-Act-2005-from-September-2009.
Pollard, S. (2010) Gove's first fight is against
the enemy within The Daily Telegraph 26 May
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/7765866/Michael-Goves-first-fight-is-against-the-enemy-within.html
Richardson, C (2009) in Alexander, R. (2010) (Ed.)
Introducing the Primary Review.
Sergeant, W (2009) Wasted: the betrayal of white
working class and black Caribbean boys
Surrey: Centre for Policy Studies
October 2010
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Inspection report for Shooters Hill
Post 16 Campus (2009)
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/117236
Appendix 2 - Inspection report for Lea Valley Primary
School (2009)
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/109777
| 
