The role and performance of Ofsted

Memorandum submitted by Alan Quinn

I wish to confine my comments to the issue of Inspection of maintained schools.

I was an Inspector of Schools, up to retirement in 2006, for 12 years. Prior to that I was a teacher for 30 years.

Summary

· The purpose of inspections

· The impact of the inspection process on school improvement

· The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work

· The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process

· Frequency, length and notice of inspections

· School assessments should not be used in an inspection

· Context Value Added is important in assessment of achievement

· Appropriateness of light-touch inspections

· A survey by me of a number of schools shows disparities in inspection judgements. Findings from 6 schools are included.

· Accountability in the inspection process is dependent on reliability and consistency in making judgements

Responding to some questions provided by the Committee;

1. I would first question the assumption that OFSTED is independent of Government. It follows Government directives by incorporating them into the inspection process. Inspectors are obliged to avoid controversy, for example when considering the balance of a curriculum as prescribed by government, and stick to prescriptive criteria. The purpose of OFSTED is to judge standards effectively and consistently and so enable institutions to improve provision but the context of the inspections must relate to each school separately and allow inspectors flexibility. The process is too rigid.

2. Whatever its shortcomings the inspection process on school performance is a powerful influence on schools. Performance has greatly improved across the educational spectrum since the introduction of a national inspection system. Prior to 1994, many schools were hidden from effective scrutiny and the variations in practice were wide. There was very little co-ordination of expectations in standards or achievement. Now, however, the distinctions between schools’ performance are getting less clear. Generally there is little firm, clear evidence to support inspection judgements, particularly on Standards reached, except a school’s own self-assessments. It looks like there is grade inflation occurring because the evidence base is not sufficiently rigorous. Comments are often bland. Standards are a key judgement is grading a school’s effectiveness. This has developed a complacency in schools. They have, subtlety, taken over control of outcomes and judgements through the self-assessment procedures. Once endorsed by Ofsted, with an overall Grade 1 or 2 (now the most common) the school is ‘safe’ and the drive for improvement can easily slacken.

3. The maximum gap between full inspections should be 6 years for high performing schools, with occasional monitoring visits, as necessary. Three years would be appropriate for most schools. Schools on ‘Notice to Improve’ should be visited regularly.

Section 5 inspections are generally too short and with too small a team of inspectors for a thorough review of a school’s performance. Notice of inspection should be no more than one day. Such inspections would be of the nature of ‘spot-checks’. This may determine whether and when a further fuller inspection is necessary. The subsequent inspection should be appropriate to the school’s size. Many schools with 1000 or more on roll are inspected in 2 days. There is, consequently, insufficient time to address issues adequately.

In the context of an inspection, the school’s own self-assessment should not be made known to the inspection team until an inspection is complete. Otherwise it will colour judgements. The extent to which it confirms or contradicts the inspection findings would be a significant piece of evidence on the school’s management and monitoring processes and would form part of the report’s findings. National tests are essential benchmarks but only if used to compare like with like.

A school’s context will, by definition, play a major part in measuring any improvement in attainment but the weight applied to any factor needs to be agreed between school and inspection team. This would assist in the planning of an inspection. Value added to pupils’ performances is the key judgement to be made about a school’s performance. It needs to be measured between Key Stages and needs to follow the same cohort, as far as is reasonable. This is rarely the case.

The light-touch inspections are appropriate for high-performing schools but criteria for identifying them should be agreed nationally.

It is essential that inspection reports be in the public domain and easily accessible. The current Ofsted website is not assisting this process. Schools’ interpretations of reports, issued to the press and parents, are often misleading (see below in sample of 3 schools). Easy public access to original reports is therefore essential.

4. Outside the direct questions from the Committee I would like to outline some research I have carried out into the reliability of inspections. I have taken 6 schools from the sample (it may be appropriate not to identify them in any published material – I identify them here so that the facts may be verified if you so wish). [1] The first 3 are more detailed than the others. The inconsistencies are not untypical. They serve to suggest that quality of inspections is not always reliable and, thus, that some teams may not be adequate for the task.

(See samples below)

1. Sample 1

Inspection date; 25/26th September 2006

Overall Grade = 3 (satisfactory)

Leadership & Management = 3

Achievement & Standards = 3

Special Needs = close to Nat. Av. Value Added = below average. Persistent absence = 8.3%. 20th/24 in Local Authority Ranking

Quality of Teaching & Learning = 3

Frequent staff changes. "Teachers plan lessons well and ensure (!?) pupils understand what they are expected to learn.............interesting lessons". School is aware of the need to improve teaching to ensure that all pupils make good progress..."

GCSE 2006 A*- C = 22%

GCSE 2007 A*- C = 19% A fall. This does not match the report’s findings and gradings. The report was carried out in September 2006. It is inaccurate – weaknesses in the system – inconsistencies in 2006. No improvement till 2008.

No recommendation for ‘Special Measures’ or ‘Notice to Improve’. Yet an Interim Monitoring visit took place on 14/12/07 which indicated "Satisfactory progress".

GCSE 2008 A* - C = 31% well below national average still but shows very good progress! This seems to be independent of the OFSTED reporting and monitoring system.

2. Sample 2

Inspection date; 20/21st November 2007 Was placed in ‘Special Measures’ in May 2007

Overall Effectiveness = 4(inadequate)

Leadership & Management = 2

"L & M are now good"

Achievement & Standards = 4

Special needs = above Nat.Av but few requiring statements. Contextual Value Added = below average. Unauthorized absence = 3.9%(2007) Persistent absence = 9.7%(2008). 62nd/84 in LA Ranking.

"...has made good progress since the last inspection" (my emphasis)

Quality of Teaching & Learning = 3

"...teaching and learning are now satisfactory overall" "Teaching is beginning to make a positive impact on students’ progress..."

GCSE 2006 A* - C = 38%

GCSE 2007 = 42%

GCSE 2008 = 43% An insignificant rise.

Recommendation for ‘Notice to Improve’. This took place on 20/11/07 – school predicts/indicates a rise of 11percentage points in GCSE 2008 – not so! Just 1.

This report is broadly in line with the evidence and gives a more accurate picture of the school’s performance. Contrast this with the report of the school cited above. However some of the judgements do not fit.

The school’s release however gave a different and misleading impression! E.g. – "Unlike many other schools nationally a key feature of (this school’s) success is the impressive result achieved in English and mathematics – 53% and 60% A*- C(respectively).

3. Sample 3

Inspection date; 30th September/1st October 2008

Overall Effectiveness = 2(good)

Leadership & Management = 2

Achievement & Standards = 2

Special needs are high but stated as of "low order". Statemented nos. are below Nat.Av. Contextual Value Added = Nat.Av. Persistent absences = 13.4%(2008) – usually a valid indicator of management problems. This % is high. High mobility of pupils. 16th/16 in LA rankings. Standards are well below average.

An inappropriate grade for standards.

Quality of Teaching & Learning = 2

"Teaching needs to be more focussed on assessing needs through effective questioning......insufficient challenge and progress"

An inappropriate grade for teaching.

It should be noted that "Many students take longer to reach nationally expected grades at GCSE. They often continue into the 6th form, where they improve on lower grades..."

GCSE 2006 A*- C = 19% (18% for those in the GCSE age range)

GCSE 2007 = 26% (% not known)

GCSE 2008 = 28% (25%)

The school’s low performance in standards is not reflected in this report. The sample school No. 2(above) could, justifiably, feel aggrieved at the disparity between these reports.

The school claims it is an "excellent" report in its ‘News to pupils and parents’!

4. Sample 4

Inspection date; 11/12th March 2009

Overall effectiveness = 2

Achievement & Standards = 2

"...standards are a little above average".

Progress and attendance are also issues.

Teaching =2

‘Letter to Pupils’ says; "should check more regularly whether you are learning as well as similar students in the school..." and "work is not always matched well to different pupils" and, "the teacher......doesn’t give you enough to do to ensure that you learn well"

Three key points, yet an overall grade of ‘good’.

5. Sample 5

Inspection date; 10/11th May 2010

Overall effectiveness = 3(satis)

Standards = 3

Standards .. "now at national average"

Teaching = 3

Yet teaching is criticised; "the considerable variation in teaching is the reason why all groups of students... make satisfactory rather than better progress"

This indicates how fewer grade boundaries now limit refinement of judgements. In the previous Section 10 Inspections there were 7 grades available. The above example suggests a Gd. 4 would have been awarded (unsatisfactory).

6. Sample 6

Inspection date; 28/29th April 2010

Overall effectiveness = 3

Teaching = 3

"Teachers do not always take the opportunity to stretch students sufficiently or allow them to take on more responsibility for their own learning (?). The Quality of Teaching is not consistently good enough to secure more than satisfactory overall process"

And

"Many parents are concerned about the need for improvements in the tracking progress". Oddly this is not matched in the parents’ responses on Teaching & Progress in the questionnaire. They were more positive.

The evidence base does not seem sufficiently secure.

Accountability in the inspection process must include reliability and consistency when applying criteria of judgements. Without these, comparisons of achievement, standards and practices will be of questionable value.

5. The format for reporting has changed since 2009/10. It is now less informative. Previously the shorter reports had:-

a) Introduction/Description of School

b) Overall effectiveness of the school

( " " " " " the Sixth Form)

c) What school should do to improve further

d) Achievement & Standards

e) Personal development & Well-being

f) Quality of Provision

g) Teaching & Learning

h) Care, Guidance & Support

i) Leadership & Management

These are followed by tables of Inspection Judgements/Grades and, finally, the text from a ‘Letter to Pupils’. There are 8 Overall Grades.

The new format is generally briefer. There are now just 3 overall grades. On average, 2 to 6 paragraphs are given to comments on aspect inspected, varying with perceived importance. The number of main headings has been reduced from 9 to 6. ‘Achievement and Standards’, the key issue in an inspection, is now subsumed into ‘Main Findings’ and/or ‘Outcomes’, often with brief comments.

6. The range of organizations and services that Ofsted now inspects is too wide and too numerous. It was set up to monitor effectiveness of education in maintained schools. Its focus is being dissipated. It is now covering fields outside education.

7. The accountability of Ofsted depends on consistency (see above). The inspection process is now too dependent on a school ‘s own assessments of its effectiveness. This should not drive an inspection but be tested by the inspection with a more vigorous approach (see paras 2 and 3 above).

In the Ofsted Annual Report of 2008/9 it states; "Ofsted is a significant ingredient in the cocktail of improvement" but, in truth, this is self-fulfilling. Inspection has become an internalized process, based on schools’ own assessments. 76% of schools’ self-assessment is graded ‘good or outstanding’. Overall Grades are now in a narrow range (1 to 4) and c. 70% are either 1 or 2. On the other hand the gap between Grades 3 and 4 is now too wide. The ratio of these awarded grades is now 7:1 respectively.

2005/6 - All schools (Section 5 inspections)

Gd 1 Gd 2 Gd 3 Gd 4

11% 48% 34% 8%

2008/9 19% 50% 28% 4%

The % of "satisfactory" has not moved much!!

Benchmarks from earlier Section 10 inspections, prior to 2005, are difficult to establish over the longer term so genuine assessment of progress over the years is limited.

October 2010