The role and performance of Ofsted

Memorandum submitted by Sense

1. Introduction

1.1

Sense is the main organisation working and campaigning with deafblind children and young people. Sense works with people who were born deafblind (often with multiple disabilities) and their families, as well as people with acquired deafblindness. Many deafblind children are MSI (multi-sensory impaired).

1.2

Deafblindness is a distinct impairment that is more than simply a combination of vision loss and hearing loss. The difficulties created for communication, mobility and access to information are vast. There are about 4,000 deafblind children/young people under 18 in the UK. This relatively small group of people experience enormous discrimination and denial of services.

1.3

Sense welcomes the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. This submission has been prepared by the public policy team in consultation with the Interim Principal and the Post Inspection Project Manager from the Sense College. The answers are in the context of the recent (March 2010) inspection of Sense College and written from the perspective of an independent specialist college focussing on post-16 educational provision.

1.4

Summary of our recommendations.

· Inspections should promote improvements in education, social care and training, should provide accountability to all stakeholders and should inform the development of national policy.

· Inspectors must have experience of special needs education and a thorough understanding of the learner group they are inspecting.

· The Deafblind Guidance must be included in the inspection regime for children’s social care.

2. Answers to the Specific Questions

What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted's remit)

2.1

Our view is that the purposes of inspection should continue to have the focus they have currently, relating to;

a) Providing accountability to service users and other stakeholders through public reporting on providers;

b) Promoting improvement in education, and training

c) Informing the development of national policy;

2.2

However, there is no mention of social care and we feel this should be added under point b) so that it is clear that improvement should also be promoted in this area.

2.3

We consider that it would enhance the inspection process if there was an additional role in the sharing of good practice, combined with support for providers who do not achieve appropriate standards. These two additional roles would see inspection activity including both the regulatory and the advisory aspect of inspection similar to the role undertaken by the Adult Learning Inspectorate between the years 2000 and 2007.

The impact of the inspection process on school (college) improvement

2.4

The impact of the inspection process can be seen in the clarification and promotion of the standards required to ensure that learners receive the best possible quality of teaching and learning, supported by informed leadership and management that is fit for purpose. These two areas are interdependent. Whilst the emphasis on proportionate inspection is welcomed we do have a concern that in the current climate of economic efficiencies that attention will be diverted from the above areas with longer term adverse impact on learners. (Please see also response to questions 6 and 7 that also inform this answer).

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work

2.5

Ofsted were sympathetic to the Sense college in carrying out their inspection. Sense were not adequately prepared for the inspection at the time but the inspectors were extremely supportive in giving what additional time they could to support the college to provide evidence to meet the required grades. The lead inspector had previous experience in carrying out monitoring visits at the college.

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

2.6

Our inspection was carried out by a group of four inspectors who worked well as a team and were consistent in their approach. Meetings throughout the inspection focused on consistency and quality. While the inspectors had experience of special needs education, a more thorough understanding of our learner group would have further supported the process.

2.7

We would call for inspectors to have experience of special needs education and a more thorough understanding of the learner group they are inspecting.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process

2.8

The needs of specialist groups of learners has to be given appropriate weight within the inspection process. The inspection experience is only as good as the experience of the inspection team and not withstanding our comments to questions 3 and 4 we feel it is of paramount importance that both lead and additional inspectors have a good understanding of the needs of specialist learner groups.

2.9

The requirement of current regional inspection provider contracts commissioned by Ofsted is that at least 50% of the additional inspector workforce are serving sector practitioners. This is essential to ensure that inspector teams have a current working knowledge of good practice. It would not seem unreasonable that this percentage could be increased given the importance of inspection to all sectors. Further specialist input in terms of enhancing knowledge and understanding could be provided by large charitable organisations that represent the needs of people with disabilities e.g. Sense, RNIB, and Mencap and others.

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children's learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate

2.10

The current remit of Ofsted is very wide ranging. The needs and interest of different parts of the sector could be better served by either smaller inspectorates with a stronger individual focus (as in previous inspection regimes) or the enhancement of specialist teams working within the current single inspectorate structure. Either solution could work, as long as the specialist knowledge of low incidence groups is able to develop further.

2.11

To some extent the needs and interests of the independent specialist college sector have been met through the sharing of good practice by a specialist Ofsted lead inspector in the public domain facilitated by the national association of independent specialist colleges (NATSPEC). Without the role of NATSPEC the inspection of an independent specialist college like the Sense college would not be as effective. This knowledge must be enabled to develop further.

2.12

It is also a factor for the Sense specialist college that within the context of delivering an educational service there is a large proportion of personal care delivered to the learners. This aspect of the provision is not inspected, but it would be useful if it could be taken into account with inspectors who have a good knowledge of these issues as well as the educational ones.

2.13

In 2001 the Department of Health issued guidance to local authorities on how they should provide services for deafblind people. This gives deafblind people greater rights to services designed for them and staffed by people who understand deafblindness.

2.14

The guidance to local authorities is issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and is called Social Care for Deafblind Children and Adults (LAC 2001 (8)). This means that local authorities must identify deafblind people living in their area; carry out a specialist assessment of their needs; ensure that they receive specialist services; make sure they can access properly trained one to one support; provide information in accessible formats and identify a senior manager who is responsible for ensuring the Deafblind guidance is implemented.

2.15

There was some confusion as to whether there was an end date on the guidance and so it was re-issued in 2009, to make clear that it has not come to end and there is no end to this statutory guidance.

2.16

For deafblind children it is vital that the Deafblind Guidance is included in the children’s social care inspection frameworks, to make sure that local authorities are implementing the guidance for children.

2.17

Without specialist support outside of school, deafblind children often rely entirely on their parents to act as their support worker and interpreter in social settings. As well as being a great strain on parents it is unacceptable that deafblind children should be denied a social life away from their parents, especially as they enter their teens. Specialist support also helps build the confidence of a deafblind child, dramatically improves their communication skills and decreases their chances of developing long-term health problems.

2.18

In 2009 the Deafblind Guidance was put into the guidance for Ofsted inspectors, who are inspecting children’s social care. Before that time the guidance had not been included in the inspection routine for children, following the separation of services for adults and children.

2.19

If, as a result of this inquiry, a change is made to the remit of Ofsted, it is vital that it is clear who should be responsible for the inspection of the Deafblind Guidance for children so that it is not lost again.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools (colleges) operating with greater autonomy

2.20

A single inspection regime, operating on a principle of inspection proportionate to need, has its benefits in reducing the number of times a provider is inspected. The emphasis on self regulation has informed and developed provider responses to critical assessment of their delivery through the self assessment process. However, a future concern in the current economic climate with the emphasis on the reduction of bureaucracy, is that providers may as a result of resource restraints be less focussed on the quality of their provision and the effectiveness of leadership and management.

2.21

Through its very existence an inspectorate serves as a mechanism for accountability. If this accountability emphasis is diluted or lost there could be potential for wider variations in education service delivery. The possibility that these could go unreported for considerable periods of time would result in wide ranging longer term impacts on both the able and less able learners within society.

October 2010