The role and performance of Ofsted

12. As the NUT’s research shows, the current inspection arrangements have an adverse affect on teachers’ stress levels and work life balance. This can act as a barrier to school improvement, as it will inevitably affect their professional practice. Where stress levels and/or workloads are high, teachers may not be able to prioritise teaching and learning as they would wish. Teachers can also become disillusioned about the profession if they feel they are constrained to teach to Ofsted "expected" outcomes. These factors have a substantial effect on the recruitment and retention of teachers at all levels of their careers: Ofsted has been cited regularly as a factor in teachers’, particularly head teachers’, decisions to leave the profession or to take early retirement.

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work

13. Ofsted presents its inspection judgements as an objective, absolute measure of the quality of schools. Yet the judgements are based on an evaluation schedule which has frequently changed its definitions of what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ and which leaves the interpretation of the evaluation criteria open to the professional judgement of individual inspectors.

14. Because of frequent changes to inspection criteria and procedures, it is also difficult to say with confidence whether the overall quality of education, or of individual schools, has improved, deteriorated or stayed the same over time. As it cannot be assumed that the objectivity and reliability of inspection judgements are secure, the current inspection model cannot bear the weight of expectations laid at its door, particularly since, as teachers know, inspections are conducted by inspectors who are as fallible in their strengths and weaknesses as teachers themselves.

15. Far from ‘raising the bar’ and ‘increasing expectations’, the 2009 Ofsted framework simply destroyed any currency or consistency that the grading system used to have. The introduction of ‘limiting judgements’ in the new inspection framework, for example, often skews overall judgements on a school. There is strong evidence to suggest that the application of these ‘limiting judgements’ has resulted in a decline in schools being rated ‘good’ or better and an increase in schools being rated ‘satisfactory’ or ‘inadequate’ despite no decline in reality. For example, 291 schools were placed in special measures and 260 given a notice to improve up to 31 May 2010 compared with 219 and 202 respectively at the same point in 2009.

16. A further example of the impact of frequent changes to inspection arrangements is the way in which ‘satisfactory’ has become a pejorative term when related to inspection. Far from signifying adequate or acceptable performance, the term ‘satisfactory’ has led to 40 per cent of schools in this category being subjected to similar monitoring procedures as those schools which have been placed in a category of concern. This is unacceptable. Schools where no aspect of provision can be described as inadequate should not be deemed to be failing. Such schools should not be subject to additional interventions such as more frequent inspections. Indeed, the term ‘satisfactory’ should be replaced with ‘acceptable’, to provide a clear indication that the school is offering an adequate quality of provision but, as for ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schools, could still improve further.

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

17. Whilst approval ratings for HMI inspectors have consistently been relatively high, NUT members have very mixed views about the performance and behaviour of inspectors employed by inspection service providers. The majority of NUT members believe that the outcome of inspection is determined very much by the composition of individual inspection teams. Across all phases, there is an ongoing perception that schools are ‘lucky’ or ‘unlucky’ in the allocation of inspectors to their school. This indicates that little progress has been made in improving quality assurance to ensure consistency of inspectors’ approaches and behaviour during an inspection itself.

18. The NUT still receives far too many reports of inspectors behaving in an unprofessional and inappropriate way. Members are frequently distressed by the language and approach used by a minority of inspectors, which can only be described as bullying. The Code of Conduct, which was introduced to provide protection against such behaviour, is of little comfort as it is difficult to substantiate a complaint of this nature through the formal complaints procedure.

19. Many members have reported a lack of match between the inspection needs of schools and inspectors’ experience. This is why a substantial proportion of members do not believe that inspectors’ judgements are fair and accurate. For teachers in special schools and pupil referral units, for example, it is a matter of continuing frustration and concern that a disproportionately high number of inspection teams do not understand the specific needs of the pupils they teach. These concerns are strongest amongst teachers of pupils in schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties. For those teaching in special schools and pupil referral units, it is clear that the main problem is that many inspectors simply do not understand the need for teachers to respond flexibly to sharp and unpredicted changes in medical conditions or behaviour.

20. Any system of national inspection should bring together teams of inspectors who have credibility with the schools they work with. Inspectors should have sustained experience in a variety of schools, and in teaching roles as well as having the necessary training for inspecting. When inspecting a school, teams should reflect a range of direct experience. The training and preparation of individual inspectors should be such that they are able to comment on the basis of experience going across the system.

5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process

21. Ofsted inspections rely too heavily on test and examination data as the baseline measure for school evaluation despite the fact that the usefulness of such data is limited by each school’s unique demography. There are too many examples of inspection teams using pure test data, without taking account of contextual information, to condemn a school that is performing very well, considering the challenges they may be facing.

22. The structure of RAISEonline, which aims to allow inspectors to make comparisons of each school’s academic results with similar schools, is flawed. The bands used for comparison of poverty are in terms of free school meals (FSM). The bands get wider as the percentage of FSM eligibility increases. Thus schools which may have significantly different levels of poverty are judged against each other. These arrangements place schools in disadvantaged areas in the invidious position of being judged on crude examination or test results alongside more favoured schools.

23. Ofsted’s over-reliance on data is deeply unfair and inaccurate in many cases but especially for small schools, special schools and those serving the most disadvantaged communities. The problem is exacerbated by some inspection teams, which arrive in school with pre-conceived ideas because of the focus on data and are often unwilling to consider any alternative evidence the school might have to offer. At its worse, crude links between the data and the inspection grades means that provision, particularly quality of teaching, is marked down in order to match the overall grade dictated by the data.

24. Under the 2009 inspection framework, the judgement on achievement now takes far greater account of attainment, that is, the standard of pupils’ work as shown by test and examination results, including in relation to the national expectations for ‘average’ pupil performance. ‘Outstanding’ achievement is not possible unless attainment is above average or high. ‘Good’ achievement requires attainment to be at least average except in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

25. In addition, Ofsted has introduced a ‘limiting judgment’ relating to pupil achievement. If Ofsted’s assessment of a school’s achievement is inadequate, then the overall effectiveness grade for the school is unlikely to be better than satisfactory and likely to be inadequate. The odds are therefore stacked against a school which has below average test or examination results, even if its provision for pupils in every other respect is outstanding.

26. At the core of the inspection process are ‘high stakes’ judgements about teaching quality, which are based on snap-shots of evidence. That those judgements are based on a small number of lesson observations which may not last longer than 20 minutes is viewed by teachers as unfair and invalid because they take no account of all the external factors which influence the quality of lessons. Such factors include the composition and attitude of classes at any one time, the inevitable stress of scrutiny, rather than simply ‘nervousness’ and even the state of each teacher’s health. This is completely different from observation conducted by their school or local authority advisory service, which is based on much more detailed knowledge about their sustained teaching ability.

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

27. The policy decision to create a single inspectorate was influenced to a large extent by developments which flowed from the Children Act, such as Joint Area Reviews of children’s services, Children’s Trusts and extended schools, which encouraged an integration of the inspection of education and care wherever possible. The intention was that this should reduce areas of overlap and duplication within the relevant separate inspection regimes and contribute to a more coherent approach to joint working within both the inspectorate and the services being inspected.

28. Although this aim was laudable, implementation has been varied. The extension of the data-driven school inspection methodology to all other sectors of the inspectorate’s remit has led to far more desk-based scrutiny of documents, rather than inspection activities which look at practice or services as they actually are. Little or no field work is carried out, inspectors simply look at documents and data to see if progress has been made towards improving outcomes for children and young people.

29. The most extreme example of the ineffectiveness of such an approach is provided by successive inspection reports on Haringey Council. In November 2007, Ofsted said: "The council's capacity to improve its services for children and young people is good and its management of these services is good." A year later, following the public reporting of the death of Baby P, Ofsted said: "Leadership and management of safeguarding arrangements by the local authority and partner agencies in Haringey are inadequate." Irrespective of whether or not Ofsted altered the grade awarded or the evidence base retrospectively after the public outcry about Baby P, as some have claimed, the credibility and accuracy of Ofsted’s current approach to inspection must be called into question.

7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools with greater autonomy

30. This question is particularly pertinent given the Coalition Government’s policy of expanding the academies programme and introducing "free schools". The NUT will not rehearse its opposition to these developments here but will focus solely on the need for such institutions to be subject to equitable evaluation and accountability mechanisms.

31. Currently, local authorities do not have the right to scrutinise, monitor or hold accountable academies in the same way as it does for maintained schools. A similar situation will exist with "free schools" when they are established. Although the LA role is supposedly taken on by DfE advisors, Ofsted provides the key means of evaluating the quality of provision.

32. The inspection of academies is currently subject to a joint Ofsted/DfE Protocol. The Protocol says that the first inspection of an academy should be "helpful in promoting the academy’s progress" and that the Academies Group could suggest that an inspection or monitoring visit was needed, or not needed, at any particular time. The Protocol also covers the provision of advice by Ofsted on the establishment of individual academies and on academies policy more generally, via a programme of regular meetings with the DfE ‘Academies Group’. The Protocol was only made available when a member of the public made enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act.

33. All inspections of academies to date have been led by HMI and involved a small group of other HMI. The Protocol says that this is because of "the new and different nature of academies" and "the need to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted". In addition, the lead HMI who have conducted the most academy inspections have also attended the Academies Group termly meetings, including discussion of individual academies with the DFE lead advisor on academies.

34. In such circumstances, it is hard to see how Ofsted can claim to inspect "without fear or favour". Ofsted has overstepped its remit. It is hard to reconcile the active involvement of Ofsted in shaping governmental policy on academies with the statement currently posted on the Ofsted website "We do not report to government ministers but directly to Parliament. This independence means you can rely on us for impartial information."

35. The NUT has drawn the Committee’s attention previously to the fact that Ofsted has not undertaken an evaluation of some of the most significant educational initiatives in recent years, including the academies programme. The previous administration instead commissioned evaluations from private sector companies to undertake this work and stated that this would be sufficient for its monitoring purposes. It would be reasonable to expect that independent scrutiny by Ofsted, drawing on its published inspection reports and other monitoring activities, would provide invaluable information on this issue. The NUT urges the Committee to consider the inclusion of such a recommendation in its final report.

October 2010

ANNEX 1

THE TROUBLE WITH OFSTED

PROPOSALS FOR THE REFORM OF SCHOOL INSPECTIONS BY THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

Ofsted has failed. The purpose of a school evaluation system should be to enable schools to ‘know themselves’ honestly in order to support their development and effectiveness. The current inspection system creates precisely the opposite set of conditions. Openness and confidence about owning the processes of school evaluation have been replaced by the paramount need to put on a performance for the inspectors. Ownership of institutional evaluation has been replaced by fear of it. Trust must replace fear.

While teachers understand the need for accountability, school evaluation is at its most effective when school communities understand its purpose and relevance. Overwhelming evidence from research and practice [4] demonstrates that evaluation by schools themselves must be at the centre of school inspection and support.

The importance of involving teachers in the development and refinement of self-evaluation and external evaluation cannot be overstated. Such an approach is critical to its widespread acceptance and to ensuring that the approach is not prescriptive but able to be customised by schools. The evidence from countries which have adopted a ‘bottom-up’ self-evaluation is that such approaches have contributed to high levels of achievement for the vast majority of pupils. Where teachers ‘own’ assessment and evaluation, standards go up, not down.

The NUT has led the way in seeking to secure school evaluation which supports, not punishes, schools.

The NUT’s work on an alternative to the current inspection system is longstanding. Its initial commissioned study, ‘Schools Speak for Themselves – Towards a Framework for Self-Evaluation’ in 1994, had an enormous impact. The study was based on the Scottish guidelines on school self-evaluation, published by the then Scottish Office Education Department in 1992.

At its heart were two themes. The first was the entirely refreshing motion that a rigorous approach to school self-evaluation by schools themselves would gather invaluable information on which the school community could act to improve its life and learning. The second was that teachers’ own judgements and insights on the strengths and weaknesses of their schools were as equally valid as those of external evaluators, such as OFSTED.

Within the original study pupils, teachers, parents, governors and members of senior management teams contributed their views on what worked within their schools and what needed to improve using an easy to use and understand set of indicators.

One of the most notable pictures of life in school came from a class of seven year olds who defined the characteristics of a good teacher.

The Good Teacher:

· is very clever;

· doesn’t shout;

· helps you every day;

· is not bossy;

· has faith in you;

· is funny;

· is patient;

· is good at work;

· tells you clearly what to do;

· helps you with mistakes;

· marks your work;

· helps you to read;

· helps you with spelling;

· has got courage.

When the NUT originally published ‘Schools Speak for Themselves’ it was concerned that teachers would feel that the Union had written something which children could use to undermine teachers. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Schools which have used their own school self-evaluation instruments have found that their understanding of school life substantially enhanced.

A follow-up study by Professor John MacBeath, ‘Schools Must Speak for Themselves’, listed the impact of the original study in other countries. Cities in Italy, Germany, Denmark, Thailand, United States, Canada, Argentina, alongside countries including Singapore and Hong Kong, had adopted the approaches of the original study. ‘Schools Speak for Themselves’ also provided the backdrop to the European Commission funded ‘Evaluating Quality in School Education’ project which involved 101 schools in 18 countries.

From the Historical Background to the Present Day

The NUT believes that developments in the inspection process in Scotland need to be examined by the coalition Government. In Scotland, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education (HMIe) make it absolutely clear that:

"The purposes of HMIe inspections are to provide assurance to stakeholders and to promote improvement, successful innovation that enhances learners’ experiences and leads to better outcomes for them… Inspections are independent, rigorous, open and fair… They meet parental expectations and focus on how children’s needs and entitlements are being met…"

One of the most crucial passages in an HMIe briefing note for schools contains the following statement:

"Inspection is founded on professional engagement between staff and inspectors. Inspections allocate time appropriate to circumstances, to first-hand observation of learning and teaching, interacting with staff and their stakeholders. In the proportion of schools where significant support is needed to encourage and promote change and improvement, HMIe engagement continues after the initial inspection through additional follow-through activities. All inspections take full account of the stakeholder perspective through analysis of questionaires that gather the views of pupils, parents and staff and through face-to-face meetings with a range of stakeholders."

A number of key features stand out in relation to the Scottish inspection system.

· Inspections in Scotland are not only independent, rigorous, open and fair, they are also accepted as such by school communities and the authorities responsible for the education service.

· Self-evaluation is not imposed. It is up to schools to present evidence to HMIe in ways that they feel confident, so that they can feel that they are presenting the most accurate picture to inspectors. Inspectors therefore know that they are receiving a 360° picture of the school’s strengths and weaknesses.

· Inspection in Scotland is not just about observing and commenting. It is about inspectors having the responsibility of following through with their recommendations by providing additional support after inspections.

· Above all, inspection in Scotland has, by and large, achieved a balance of challenge and support which means that the inspection process is embedded in the day-to-day lives of schools.

What Then Should Happen to the Current Inspection Arrangements?

The NUT believes that the coalition Government should commission an independent review, accompanied by widespread consultation on the effects of the current school accountability system on children and young people, on teaching and learning and on schools as communities. The review should cover all the systems of accountability to which schools are currently subject, in particular the Ofsted inspection system and the use of National Curriculum assessment results for accountability purposes. The review should focus on securing a single system of institutional accountability which supports and challenges school communities and which fosters schools’ ownership of evaluation.

The NUT believes that such a review should be conducted prior to any legislative reforms to the inspection system. There is overwhelming evidence that the approach set out below is the most effective.

School Self-Evaluation

· Schools should have primary responsibility for their evaluation.

· Each school’s approach to self-evaluation and its resulting development plan would provide the basis for external evaluation. Schools should not be expected to engage in the production of any new or additional materials in preparing for external evaluation.

· The views of stakeholder groups, representing teaching and support staff, senior management, pupils, parents and governors should be fully reflected in each school’s self-evaluation.

Schools in Need of Additional Support

· The category of ‘special measures’ and ‘significant improvement’ should be replaced by the designation ‘schools needing additional support’.

· Head teachers of schools needing additional support should be offered a range of support including, where appropriate, from head teachers or local authority advisors.

· There should be no ‘one size fits all’ deadline for improvement.

· Local authorities should have a key school improvement responsibility for supporting such schools, including the provision of additional targeted resources such as advisors and seconded teachers based in those schools.

School Evaluation – National and Local Accountability

The NUT believes that the following national framework should be established.

· Ofsted should be abolished and replaced by an independent Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI).

· The current system of contracted inspections should be abolished. Instead, HMI would carry out the external part of school evaluation.

· Each external school evaluation should be carried out by HMI, accompanied by a small number of trained advisors drawn from head teachers, teachers, local authority advisors, parents and school communities.

· The role of external evaluators or inspectors should be to assess the information provided by each school’s evaluation procedures alongside its own inspections. The information arising from the inspection would be used to provide advice to schools.

· Discussions with staff should be an integral part of external evaluations. External evaluation would be seen as a dialogue between professionals from the outset. A fundamental underpinning of that dialogue should be based on the principles of respect and trust.

· Each school’s head teacher and staff should be involved in the inspection team’s discussion and judgement processes, to enable the school to contribute to a professional dialogue about the school’s strengths and weaknesses. Training for head teachers on the external validation process would address their roles in both their own and other schools.

· HMI should be required to inspect the impact of national and local initiatives on both head teachers and teachers and the contributions of head teachers to achieving a reasonable work-life balance for staff.

· The evaluation framework should be flexible enough to cover both individual schools and the collaborative arrangements between schools, including federations. All schools within a federation would be inspected together and treated as a coherent unit when evaluating the federation’s overall effectiveness.

Where There is Disagreement

It is quite clear from the current arrangements that, to ensure that schools are confident about the institutional evaluation system, they need a fair and independent appeals procedure. The NUT believes that a genuinely independent inspection adjudicator on inspections should be established who is appointed by the Government through normal Nolan procedures. It also believes that the adjudicator’s investigations and judgements should not be limited. If the inspections adjudicator believed that the evaluation conducted by HMI was unfair, the adjudicator would be able to change HMI judgements.

The Role of a New HMI

The current use of blanket National Curriculum assessment and tests to act as a proxy for evaluating the effectiveness of schools is excessive, punitive and ineffective. The NUT has consistently argued for the establishment of a national Assessment of Performance Unit with a responsibility for sampling the effectiveness of the education system. A new HMI would work with a new APU.

The appointment of the Chief Inspector would take place through Nolan procedures or successor transparent arrangements. The Chief Inspector would have responsibility for reporting annually to Parliament. He or she would be accountable to Parliament through the House of Commons’ Children, Schools and Families Select Committee. In addition, the Chief Inspector’s Annual Report should be presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State.

IN SUMMARY

Ofsted claims that its self-evaluation form encapsulates the principles of school self-evaluation. It doesn’t. In Scotland, evidence-gathering is subordinate to the establishment of a relationship between the Scottish HMIe and school communities. The key difference between England and Scotland is that the Scottish HMIe has an ongoing and positive relationship with schools through follow-through activity which involves advice and support. In contrast in England, schools greet the prospect of inspections with both fear and weariness.

All the evidence is that many staff, including school leaders who could have continued making a valuable contribution to their schools, decide prematurely that they cannot experience further inspections. Many of England’s most experienced head teachers retire early because of their fear of inspection’s high stakes consequences or their belief that their last inspection reports are as good as they get. The attrition on dedicated and committed staff of the current Ofsted approach has to stop. The NUT believes that the principles outlined in this statement provide the basis for reform and it urges strongly the new coalition Government to conduct an independent review of the school inspection system prior to considering any legislative change.

ANNEX 2

A SUMMARY OF THE NUT’S 2008

SURVEY OF THE VIEWS OF NUT MEMBERS ABOUT SECTION 5 OFSTED INSPECTIONS

1. Although aspects of the current inspection arrangements are supported by teachers, such as the reduced amount of notice of inspection and the reduction in the amount of time spent in schools by inspectors, the negative impact which they perceive inspection to have on themselves, their colleagues and their school outweighs any benefits inspection might bring.

2. A constant theme throughout respondents’ written comments was the stress, pressure and additional workload which were associated with inspection. This was in contrast to the findings of the NUT’s survey in 2006 and in many areas reflected the findings of its 2004 survey, before major changes to the inspection framework, which were supposed to address these issues, had been introduced.

3. Respondents’ written comments rarely gave just one example of additional workload – many were in fact a catalogue of tasks which they had undertaken, which they often explained as necessary because they wanted their school to do well in the inspection. The high stakes consequences of not doing so well were clearly upper most in the minds of many respondents, particularly those who reported working all weekend or late into the night at school prior to the inspection commencing.

4. This is also likely to be the reason why so many respondents reported working on classroom displays which they felt would meet inspectors’ approval or, indeed, undertaking cleaning activities in their school. The ‘fresh paint’ syndrome, which has been used to jokingly describe the lengths to which schools go to make a good first impression on inspectors, would certainly appear to have some substance behind it. This finding also raises the issue that teachers are choosing or being directed to ignore the provisions of the National Agreement on Workload. Whilst inspection is so critical for the future of schools and their staff, however, it is unlikely that any guidance from Ofsted alone would tackle this problem - the issue appears more rooted in the punitive outcomes associated with inspection.

5. The two most frequently mentioned drivers of workload, lesson planning and paperwork, are well known to Ofsted and have featured regularly in previous NUT surveys on inspection. What has emerged from this survey, however, is that this problem is no longer confined to primary schools but has spread to all phases of education. It is clear that Ofsted’s existing guidance, that particular formats for lesson plans or certain forms of documentation are not required by inspectors, has not had an effect or has been forgotten. The NUT would recommend that Ofsted consider up-dating and re-launching its guidance on this issue in an attempt to tackle rising levels of pre-inspection workload.

6. Increased workload, together with the pressure of knowing that the school could be deemed to be failing, with all of the monitoring and uncertainty that this now entails, are almost certainly the key factors in the heightened levels of stress reported by respondents. A particularly disturbing finding was that comparatively younger or newer members of the profession were more likely to say they had been highly stressed by the inspection than in previous surveys.

7. This has serious implications for their future retention and the NUT believes that, together with the on-going evidence of the impact of inspection on head teachers’ and other members of the Leadership Group’s recruitment and retention, this by itself provides a strong rationale for reform of school inspection arrangements.

8. An additional rationale is the evidence provides by this survey that inspection is increasingly seen as disruptive to the life and work of schools, particularly as it does not fit with the natural yearly cycles of school development and planning work and is perceived by many respondents to actually detract from their school’s ‘real’ work. There was also increased evidence in this year’s survey that teachers’ professional development and other activities had been disrupted by the inspection, partly because teachers felt they must concentrate all their efforts on the inspection for the good of the school as a corporate body, rather than undertake work which could be more directly beneficial to teaching and learning.

9. As has been the case with previous NUT surveys, the quality of the inspection team was key to respondents’ perceptions about the inspection process in general and the inspection outcome in particular, with respondents still believing that the outcome of the inspection could be determined very much by the composition of individual inspection teams. The relevance of inspectors’ experience and knowledge for undertaking inspections of the Foundation Stage, SEN provision and special schools were again highlighted as particular causes of concern.

10. Concern was also expressed about the practice of assigning only one inspector to some inspections, which respondents felt could exacerbate the issue referred to above of lack of appropriate experience about particular types of provision but could also impact detrimentally on standard inspection processes.

11. There was a much greater level of polarisation than in the previous surveys, however, with far fewer respondents expressing neutral views on teams. Approval rating of HMI inspectors, however, continued to be relatively high judging by written comments. This indicates that little progress has been made in improving quality assurance to ensure consistency of inspectors’ approaches o behaviour during an inspection itself.

12. A number of respondents described positive experiences of inspection teams or individual inspectors as ‘surprising’ or revealing a ‘human’ side to Ofsted, particularly where they felt the school’s or their own circumstances had been taken into account. It is disappointing that this should be still seen as an aberration for the usual standard of inspection teams, rather than the norm and that opportunities for inspectors to show some compassion or understanding for school staff were missed.

13. Overall ratings concerned with the level of professional dialogue and the supportiveness of the inspection visit did, however, decline slightly compared to 2006, which again may be attributed to dissatisfaction with the inspection arrangements as a whole rather than a sudden decline in the quality of individual inspection teams, however inconsistent this might be.

14. Respondents’ views on the current inspection arrangements were complex. On one hand, there was an increased level of support for the view that inspection reports were generally accurate and fair, but the perception that inspection failed to assess or capture accurately the value added by schools also increased.

15. This appeared to be linked to the very strong feeling that test and examination results were used far too much as indicators of school quality, with approaching two thirds of all the written comments made alluding to this in one way or another.

16. The main arguments used were that pupil performance data was being used exclusively by inspectors because of the reduced amount of time in school; that this was deeply unfair and inaccurate for small schools, special schools and those serving the most disadvantaged communities; that inspectors arrived in school with pre-conceived ideas because of the focus on data and were often unwilling to consider any alternative evidence the school might have to offer; and that crude links between these data and the inspection grades meant that provision, particularly quality of teaching, would be marked down in order to match the overall grade dictated by the data.

17. This does not bode well for one of the proposals made by Ofsted for revisions to the inspection framework from September 2009. In addition, respondents expressed mixed views about several of Ofsted’s other proposals, in particular the continuing focus on the core subjects only during full inspections, which saw a considerable increase in the number of respondents who now oppose this, and the introduction of no notice inspections, which appeared to be deeply unpopular.

18. There was much stronger support, however, for the proposal to increase the period inspectors spent observing teaching, with respondents suggesting between 20 minutes as a full lesson as the optimal observation period which would enable inspectors to gain an accurate picture of the quality of teaching.

19. Respondents typically favoured the retention of the current arrangements in this respect, with between two and five days being seen as the optimal notice period, although many did not that this did not actually reduce stress and preparation as the inspection ‘window’ for a particular school could be deduced up to two years in advance. Respondents also preferred the current three year inspection cycle and there was some support for a six year cycle, but for all schools, not just for high performing schools as Ofsted had proposed. The idea of yearly inspections for some ‘satisfactory’ schools failed to gain a single supporter amongst respondents to this survey.

20. There was also a fair level of concern about the trend towards shortening inspection visits to just one day, the so-called ‘light touch’ inspections. Although many respondents welcomed the reduction in the length of the visit they were also concerned that it did not give sufficient time for inspectors to genuinely get a feel for their school or to investigate the story behind the data. A number pointed out that it had enabled the school to ‘hide’ various aspects of provision or conceal weaknesses, which were not in the long run in the best interests of the school. This might indicate a need for the survey of staff which was suggested by Ofsted in its proposals for the 2009 inspection framework.

21. Respondents remained unsatisfied, however, with the Ofsted inspection regime as currently formulated, as they continued to believe that this was separate from support for school improvement. The majority of respondents still believe that inspections do not stimulate support or help from external sources or help their individual school improve. A number questioned why, given that inspection appeared now to simply validate their school’s own self evaluating as set out in the SEF, both processes should continue. Others proposed alternative accountability systems which they thought would have a more direct impact on school improvement.

22. Respondents to this survey, as in previous NUT research, clearly supported the view that it is the structural nature of the inspection system which his now in urgent need of reform and the "tinkering round the edges", or proposed revisions to the inspection framework in 2009, will do nothing to address existing problems. Until inspections are de-coupled form their potentially punitive consequences and given a more developmental and supportive function, they will continue to drive up pressure and stress in schools.