The role and performance of Ofsted
Memorandum submitted by the Association of National Specialist Colleges, Natspec
Natspec represents 58 independent specialist colleges (ISCs) that are funded through the YPLA and inspected by Ofsted. It also represents post 16 units in a number of independent special schools. Members meet the learning and support needs of over 4,000 learners with complex learning difficulties and/or disabilities who are unable to access their local provision. Inspections are undertaken by a team of specialist inspectors.
1. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit)
a)
Purpose of Ofsted should be to promote continuing improvement across all providers, with a particular emphasis on teaching and learning and leadership & management. In order to achieve this, there should be a greater focus on offering advice, sharing best practice and making more substantial and comprehensive recommendations, particularly during the course of inspections. This would make more effective use of the wealth of information and knowledge within the inspectorate and would be of particular benefit to providers needing to improve their performance.
b)
We feel there could also be significant improvements to the Ofsted website which would facilitate their role in improving quality. The option of finding the most recent reports has disappeared and there is no search facility for specific aspects of practice, so for example, you cannot search for examples of colleges that have been judged to have an outstanding capacity to improve.
c)
Ofsted’s role in monitoring quality also contributes to provider accountability. It is proper that colleges should be held to account for their use of public funds and that reports should be widely available.
d)
With regard to ISCs, where it is often difficult to provide useful quantative information and data on areas such as learners’ achievements, the qualitative judgements made by Ofsted are of particular value.
2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement
a)
We believe that the inspection process can have a positive impact on performance and lead to significant improvements, but we feel that the impact would be greatly increased if the inspectorate undertook the advisory role outlined above.
b)
NATSPEC views the impact of Ofsted inspections on college improvement as positive and there is strong evidence that a significant number of ISC’s have improved the quality of the provision they make for LLDD in response to feedback from Ofsted inspections. There has been a consistent improvement in grades and in overall quality across the ISC sector.
c)
However, we also believe that the sector can contribute a great deal to its own improvement and has demonstrated this in a number of ways. In addition to the Peer Review and Development programme, in which all ISCs participate, Natspec has led improvement projects across the ISC sector with very positive results. These projects have made particular use of the expertise in good and outstanding colleges to mentor and support other colleges.
3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work
a)
We are concerned that there is an undue burden on ISCs in terms of the scale and frequency of inspections. It is quite normal for there to be an inspection team of 4 inspectors spending four days in a college with only 100 learners which we feel to be disproportionate and not the best use of resources. The inspection format in these very small colleges is exactly the same as in much larger providers, with grades being awarded against all aspects of the framework.
b)
By contrast, provision for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in GFEs is rarely inspected. Even when it is inspected, it is usually as one aspect of a larger department covering Access courses, basic and key skills and ESOL. So although there may be many more learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities within a large GFE department than there are in most ISCs, there will only be a short paragraph on this provision. In addition, such inspections may not be undertaken by LLDD specialist inspectors, as the focus of the inspection of this curriculum area is likely to be much broader.
c)
This is of particular concern when policy is currently promoting increased access to local provision and yet there is very little information about its quality. A growing number of vulnerable young people with increasingly complex needs are being educated in local provision which is rarely if ever inspected. This does not enable local authority commissioners to make informed, fair and transparent decisions about where the needs of these learners are best met.
d)
Natspec welcomes its strong professional relationship with the specialist team in Ofsted, which has helped to promote a genuine shared approach to ensuring the best interests of learners. It has fostered a positive attitude to inspection and enabled Natspec to work effectively with Ofsted and member colleges to contribute to improved inspection outcomes.
4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process
a)
We welcome the specialist team of inspectors that visits ISCs; their knowledge about learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities adds value to their judgements because they understand the context in which we work. We would not wish to see this team diminished in any way.
b)
It is helpful when there is a link inspector to provide consistency between inspections and to undertake monitoring visits as well as full inspections. They are able to develop an understanding of the college systems, thus saving inspection time, and they have a real opportunity to recognise progress. They can support college improvements, build positive relationships of trust and engage in professional discussion
5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process
a)
We welcome the increased focus on T&L in the new Common Inspection Framework and believe this is firmly where the greatest emphasis of inspection should be.
b)
We understand the importance of E&D and safeguarding but we are concerned that there is sometimes an undue focus on administrative requirements for compliance rather than the quality of work being undertaken. We are not convinced that inspectors always have appropriate knowledge about these areas, or an understanding of how they should be applied in a specialist context. In the example below, it is not clear how this judgement is helpful or appropriate when applied to learners with LDD:
‘It is not sufficiently rigorous in analysing its data in relation to the application, participation and outcomes for different groups of learners in order to identify any shortfalls in performance’. (Grade 3)
6. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate
a)
We agree that there should be a common inspectorate with broadly similar aims, but it is vital to retain elements of specialism within it. These might relate to learner groups such as learners with LDD, or to phases of education.
7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy
a)
We believe that outstanding ISCs should be inspected on the same cycle as other outstanding providers. However, we are supportive of the desk based ‘health check’ approach which can highlight any aspects of concern and trigger an early inspection if required.
October 2010
|
