The role and performance of Ofsted

Memorandum submitted by Sam Preston

Evidence submitted

I wish to present this evidence to the Select Committee regarding the Role & Performance of Ofsted. This evidence is submitted by Sam Preston, an independent school improvement consultant specialist in Child Protection and Safeguarding Children & Young People. (Contact details and profile attached. Please note I am working in New York until the 22nd October 2010). The opportunity to share research finding by further written or oral evidence is welcomed. As such this attached information is a brief overview, given the allocated word count.

Executive Summary - Introduction to Safeguarding research and audit process

1. The following information is submitted to the Select Committee to inform the Ofsted review process through the production of evidenced based research with measurable outcomes. This research is a validated process and has been gathered through my Masters in Education by Research, completed at York University 2010, and an ongoing safeguarding audit study which commenced from the introduction of the revised inspection framework in 2009 to date. This study includes data gathered through two processes: 100 on site audits and further on line software audits for children’s centres and school outside the Yorkshire & Humber region. These audit processes examine the following contributory areas in relation to the safeguarding limiting judgement introduced in October 2009:

· Core policy/ protocol development in key areas such as Safety, Child Protection, Behaviour, SEN, Intimate Care, Visitors to School/ Children’s Centre

· Training and continued professional development

· Risk assessment documentation and practice including site management (external/ internal), storage of hazardous substances, school visits and transportation, pupil residential visits and extended service/ curriculum enhancement provision.

· Children’s Centre / School development planning including self evaluation processes.

Summary of Key Findings:

2. Quality and consistency of inspection: The quality and continuity of the Ofsted inspection process in terms of safeguarding demonstrates great inconsistencies in terms of focus and expertise. The data detail there is little evidence of assimilation of social context to inform the inspection process. Many lines of Ofsted enquiry have been focused on record keeping and documentation rather than practice and evidence of outcomes for children and young people. This has lead to unrealistic expectations and commitments in terms of budget expenditure for schools and children’s centres.

3. The introduction of Safeguarding as a limiting judgement and terminology –Schools report that Safeguarding has been a useful term to consider, promote and expand best practice beyond Child Protection of already identified vulnerable children to establish proactive service. The Safeguarding judgement has increased the focus on developing best practice and has particularly aided mechanisms for support in regard to Special Educational Needs (SEN) and children experiencing behavioural difficulties/ challenges.

4. Interpretation of Central Government and Ofsted policies- At a local level Children’s Centres and Schools have found interpreting and transferring national policy guidance into everyday practice difficult. The Local authority guidance reviewed as part of this research process was also found to be of very poor quality and often not clearly aligned with the current inspection process. Mechanisms within schools to disseminate information and current policy are poor, particularly at secondary levels, and especially within extended service provision. This presents an elevated level of risk.

5. Despite the previous Government’s focus on vetting and barring current vetting mechanisms and Single Central Record maintenance in all of the participating Children’s Centres and schools were found to be incomplete and inconsistent. This presents a real, measured defined risk.

6. Policy, protocols and practice to provide a secure environment were a key area of concern in both Children’s Centres and school settings. The study was unable to determine coherent practice in any of the audited settings. Of specific concern was that protective arrangements were not in place for children found to be missing, absconding from settings or that there were comprehensive procedures for the use of force to control or restrain.

7. Risk assessment, both on Children’s Centre / school sites and for external visits was of an extremely poor standard. The study evidences that this responsibility is currently being entrusted to staff without the relevant training, experience or expertise.

8. On completing the safeguarding audit process there was a greater impact on school improvement /development planning, leadership accountability and dissemination mechanisms. Schools positively reported this development, particularly highlighting the fact that resources could be maintained in core teaching and learning responsibilities.

9. The full audit of multi agency and extended service provision identified a lack in sharing of ratified policy/ protocols, monitoring and evaluation of delivery. This presents a real concern in relation to governance, litigation and robust systems in place for evaluating outcomes.

Supporting Commentary

10. This submitted information is a very brief overview of an in depth study and I am fully prepared to make my full evidenced based findings available to the committee to enable formulation of a more autonomous robust system of monitoring, evaluation and improvement. As indicated earlier the weight given within the current inspection framework re Safeguarding as a limiting judgement has been extremely positive in terms of focusing Children’s Centres and Schools on proactive approaches rather than the evidenced tradition of reactionary intervention. When asked, all schools participating in the study confirmed that the fact Safeguarding had been introduced as a limiting judgement elevated senior management consideration of this area as a priority. However, the quality of expertise and direction of inspection has led many schools within the study to question the benefits of the inspection process. As such, schools have not shared a consistent inspection experience resulting in a lack of parity both in judgements and inspectorate requirements of schools. This often has major budgetary implications for children’s centres / schools.

11. Having audited schools where Head Teachers have also been employed to carry out Ofsted inspections I have grave concerns re the understanding of the nature of this areas inclusion within securing the best outcomes for children and young people and do question how Ofsted safeguarding expertise is defined and measured. This is a crucial element if the aim is to support school improvement particularly in terms of supporting those children in challenging social environments.

12. The evidence gathered within this safeguarding audit process raises concerns re the parity and expertise regarding the performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work in this area and highlights the need for evidence based research to inform and impact positively on school improvement and ultimately the outcomes for children. If schools are to operate with greater autonomy the mechanisms for safeguarding accountability requires careful consideration in terms of accurate inspection and positive progress. This of course raises the issue of the development of robust commissioning frameworks to allow Children’s Centres and Schools to commission the improvement / development services they identify they need to progress their development planning.

I would recommend the committee considers the full implications of my research prior to determining the formulation of proposals to the House.

October 2010

Sam Preston is an independent specialist consultant with dual qualifications in Education and Health. She holds an MA in Education (by research) and a BSc in Health. She is undertaking PHD education research study at the University of York, examining the impact of limiting judgements within the education inspection process on school performance. This is a comparative study with school improvement measures/ performance in New York City. She lectures on policy implementation in education and health practice and, has extensive experience of supporting schools through her previous work as a local authority school improvement strategy manager. Her previous roles include strategic development with the Department of Children, Schools &Families, Department of Health and the Home Office. She has also advised the Scottish Parliament policy development office on the redevelopment of community practice in schools.

Sam headed a specialist unit for vulnerable children aged 3- 12years, managing a multi-agency team and child protection caseload. During this time she also managed two Junior Youth Inclusion projects which provided learning through diversionary activities for those children at risk of entering the youth justice system.

She has worked in Children’s Services for 15 years within Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts. Much of her work and research has focused on education within inner city, high deprivation areas and has focused on policy development and designing implementation frameworks to improve both practice at service level and the outcomes for children. She has participated in central government inspection processes including Joint Area Reviews and specialist Ofsted focus inspections. She has a wealth of experience in school Ofsted inspections and in her current role she assist schools and children’s centres to consider school development planning whilst completing the self evaluation process and prepare for Ofsted & Estyn inspection under the revised framework. She provides specialist consultation support in Safeguarding and Child Protection.

Professional / personal activities

Sam is a trustee of the Life Education Bradford charity and a member of the advisory board for The Trolley Charitable Trust. She is the TES Safeguarding expert consultant and an inner city school vice chair / governor with responsibility for Safeguarding, Child Protection & SEN.