The role and performance of Ofsted

Memorandum submitted by Granada Learning

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 By encouraging a culture of self-evaluation, Ofsted has helped schools to improve because they must take responsibility for monitoring their performance and responding to feedback. With the increased opportunity for state-funded schools to convert to academy status, and with free schools diversifying school management and governance, high standards in self-evaluation will become ever more crucial.

1.2 The Government has signalled that schools should now move away from the Self-Evaluation Form (SEF) and take ownership by tailoring their approach to their own circumstances. This may drive improvement from within rather than by the threat of Ofsted impositions. However, it is critical that in altering the format and process of self-evaluation, the standards of self-evaluation are actively maintained.

1.3 Ofsted’s approach to self-evaluation would be improved by expecting schools to triangulate stakeholder perspectives consistently. That is, schools should regularly seek the views of a range of stakeholders in their performance monitoring to raise the quality of their self-evaluation and the decisions it informs. To this end, more than half of all English state-funded secondary schools use the Kirkland Rowell self-evaluation survey system. Analysis of the results gives schools an independent and reliable critique of their strengths and weaknesses, as well as an objective reference point when tracking the impact of policy developments.

1.4 The ongoing importance of Ofsted’s role in self-evaluation should not be overlooked: irrespective of its format, self-evaluation will always present some kind of burden on school resources. As resources become scarcer, schools may well be tempted to reallocate them away from self-evaluation, even though the long-term implication would be a likely lowering of standards. For self-evaluation to continue having a meaningful contribution to school improvement, Ofsted needs to maintain the value of self-evaluation in the eyes of schools.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Kirkland Rowell Limited is a specialist provider of school stakeholder surveys and analysis. The company’s parental, pupil and staff surveys generate statistically reliable management data on a school’s perceived performance, with reports tailored to the school’s circumstances. The surveys and analysis are used to prepare for and respond to Ofsted inspections, to complete Self-Evaluation Forms (SEFs), in developing School Improvement Plans, and for a variety of school-specific initiatives. The company has collected attitudinal data for 13 years and consequently can track national trends in stakeholder perceptions of school and education policy, as well as help schools to compare themselves with others in similar situations. Further details are contained in Annex I.

2.2 Kirkland Rowell was founded in 1998 and in 2010 became part of the Granada Learning Group of educational companies, which also includes GL Assessment, W3 Insights and Granada Learning Professional Development (GLPD, which works with a large number of Ofsted inspectors).

2.3 In Kirkland Rowell’s experience, schools tend to have a positive view of self-evaluation, although the completion of the SEF can present a burden which at times obscures its intended benefits. In moving away from the SEF towards tailored approaches, the value that self-evaluation adds to school improvement needs to be maintained.

2.4 This response incorporates MSc dissertation research carried out during June and July 2010. The student asked a random sample of 1,400 headteachers at state-funded primary schools in England with over 100 pupils about their attitudes towards self-evaluation; 301 anonymous postal survey responses were received. The student was the recipient of the Miroslav Malis memorial scholarship, sponsored by Kirkland Rowell. Kirkland Rowell suggested the topic, gave a random sample of headteachers from its national database, and also assisted in question design. The student carried out all further work and the schools were unaware of Kirkland Rowell’s involvement. Further details are contained in Annex II.

3. THE IMPACT OF THE INSPECTION PROCESS ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

How self-evaluation supports school improvement

4. Headteachers tend to show a high level of support for self-evaluation. The research sample showed that 92.0% agreed or strongly agreed that the school management team had embraced the self-evaluation culture. [1] Furthermore, 65.2% agreed or strongly agreed that non-management staff had also embraced this culture. [2] This positive outlook is likely to have been reinforced over time as headteachers experienced the benefits: 83.2% believed that their schools had improved as a result of self-evaluation processes. [3]

4.1 Ofsted’s encouragement of a culture of self-evaluation has helped schools to improve because they must take responsibility for monitoring their performance and responding to feedback. In developing their judgements, schools must gather verifiable evidence, and identify and prioritise areas for improvement. The quality of evidence will be reflected in the quality of the self-evaluation and any remedial action taken. Additionally, trends will appear over time, drawing attention to problems and successes which might not otherwise have been seen, as well as allowing the impact of any changes to be identified and measured.

4.2 Moreover, by conducting stakeholder surveys, schools can make themselves directly accountable to pupils, parents and teachers. This is a highly valuable link which ensures ongoing dialogue; as School A stated, ‘I have circulated the "headlines" [of the survey] to the parents and many have taken the trouble to contact me to express how useful they find the service and how much they value the opportunity of influencing the direction of their local school. As Governors and staff we have considered the reports and are grateful for the insights it has revealed.’ [4]

4.3 With the increased opportunity for state-funded schools to convert to academy status, and with free schools diversifying school management and governance, high standards in self-evaluation will become ever more crucial. Academies and free schools have been given independence so that they can use their expertise to raise standards. They will need to be able to assess the effectiveness of their policies and practices first hand, refine as appropriate, and re-assess to validate the impact. For example, School B – which converted from a comprehensive to an academy – had for several years before its conversion surveyed parents and pupils as part of its self-evaluation. Self-evaluation enabled the school to see the impact of the transition directly.

Using triangulation to improve self-evaluation

4.4 The SEF’s requirements mirror Ofsted’s inspection schedule. However, in reviewing self-evaluation arrangements, Kirkland Rowell would recommend that triangulation – a common assessment technique – is encouraged in order to consistently elicit stakeholder opinion. Teachers regularly use multiple results and measures to evaluate their pupils’ progression and so design appropriate next steps. Similarly, by gathering the views of stakeholders schools are more likely to arrive at balanced conclusions. In this respect, John Dunford, then General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, has stated that, ‘Many ASCL members use Kirkland Rowell, an ASCL premier partner, or similar companies to carry out the [parent and student] surveys for them and produce results in a form that enables school leaders to benchmark performance against that of other similar schools. This is critically important information for school self-improvement ... parent surveys [should] remain in the ownership of the school as part of the increasingly successful and rigorous self-evaluation now carried out annually in the vast majority of schools.’ [5]

4.5 Stakeholder surveys give schools clear feedback and independently verifiable data and, particularly when there is a high response rate, a valid benchmark for comparison with later years. Moreover, discussions can use those independent results as a reference point, enabling objective decisions to be made. If negative feedback has been received from one person or a small group, surveying a larger sample gives a more reliable representation of stakeholder perceptions, helping to identify causes and appropriate changes. As School C commented, ‘I have feedback that genuinely enables me to prioritise areas for school improvement to meet the wishes of the parents. It has also provided me with invaluable, independently verifiable data for the School Evaluation Form [sic] and School Profile.’

4.6 Surveys are likely to confirm some of a school’s judgements as well as highlight new points to consider. The research described in 2.3 showed that 44.0% of the sample who had conducted stakeholder surveys believed these surveys had found little or no new information, [6] while 55.3% had found some or much new information. [7] For example, School D found that the results, ‘have endorsed our own perceptions of what the stakeholders thought about [our school] and simultaneously given us some key points for action which we are already tackling via our SEF and School Management Plan. We look forward to repeating the exercise next year to see if the results of our work will have had the desired effect and also to begin to monitor the perception trends over time.’

4.7 Monitoring for discrepancies between stakeholder perceptions enables schools to avoid misunderstandings and tensions, as well as develop positive relationships within the school community. Parents value being consulted and the opportunity to influence the direction of the school, as well as to gain insight into other parent and stakeholder views. In this respect, School E considered that, ‘It has dispelled some real myths about attitudes of parents and as a result, created a basis on which to plan. It has raised the morale of staff in that it has made staff realise just how much they are appreciated by parents.’

School self-evaluation without a Self-Evaluation Form (SEF)

4.8 To date, self-evaluation has been carried out by schools because of Ofsted’s introduction of the SEF. On 23rd September 2010 it was announced that schools would be encouraged to tailor their self-evaluation to their local circumstances rather than comply with the SEF.

4.9 Although 73.2% of headteachers in the sample believed the SEF was a very big or a large burden, [8] 75.4% nevertheless said the time and resources spent on self-evaluation were worthwhile. [9] Furthermore, 97.3% felt very or quite confident in managing the school’s self-evaluation processes. [10] It therefore appears that headteachers felt capable of developing the evaluation, and believed the benefits of the SEF at least equalled the burden of its completion.

4.10 Moreover, 44.0% of respondents completed the SEF to prepare for an Ofsted inspection (and 41.3% because Ofsted expected them to), while 32.9% updated their SEFs annually and 55.1% did so termly. This indicates that although the impetus generally came from Ofsted requirements, the SEF nevertheless became a normal part of school management.

4.11 Ofsted’s SEF expectations were critical in developing a self-evaluation culture. It now may be appropriate to recognise the maturity of the system by removing form compliance and encouraging a tailored approach – as the Government has recently done. Schools monitoring their own performance through self-evaluation would drive improvement from within rather than by the threat of Ofsted impositions. This would indicate the quality of school leadership and its reliability in ensuring accurate data and addressing problems. However, it is critical that in altering the format of self-evaluation, the standards of self-evaluation are actively maintained.

4.12 The SEF’s categories were harmonised with Ofsted’s inspections. Therefore, in completing it a school would understand how it would be inspected, while in reviewing it Ofsted would gain a clear understanding of the school’s insight and capacity for improvement. Although the form may now no longer be specified, Ofsted needs to remain as clear in its expectations and requirements.

4.13 The standardised approach of the SEF enabled schools to analyse their standards against those of others working in equivalent environments. Without the SEF, some schools will find it difficult to make comparisons between themselves and their peers, particularly for schools experiencing challenging circumstances. Ofsted will need to support schools in understanding how they compare to others, what has been successful elsewhere, and what other issues might be foreseen.

4.14 The loss of the SEF would also see indirect benefits jeopardised. In Kirkland Rowell’s experience, teachers are often unsure of how to design effective stakeholder surveys. Parallels to this are likely to appear when each school can design its own SEF. With the SEF, schools had a clear and structured process through which they could identify areas for improvement. The ongoing option of using the SEF would allow schools to concentrate on self-evaluation where they are less confident of designing their own approach.

4.15 The ongoing importance of Ofsted’s role in self-evaluation should not be overlooked: irrespective of its format, self-evaluation will always present some kind of burden on school resources. As resources become scarcer, schools may well be tempted to reallocate them away from self-evaluation, even though the long-term implication would be a likely lowering of standards. For self-evaluation to continue having a meaningful contribution to school improvement, Ofsted needs to maintain the value of self-evaluation in the eyes of schools.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 The SEF has helped schools to identify their priorities for improvement, and given schools a clear process for analysing their data and creating informed judgements. The Government has now recognised the growing maturity in the school self-evaluation system by encouraging schools to move away from the SEF to develop their own tailored approaches. To ensure the continuing value of self-evaluation in school improvement, best practice should correct the flaws of the SEF but not overlook the positive contributions it has made.

5.2 In respect of the SEF’s weaknesses, there should be an expectation that schools make consistent use of their stakeholders and regularly seek their opinions and experiences to increase the reliability of their self-evaluation. Kirkland Rowell has found that doing so often makes schools more confident in their judgements, but in particular, schools gain a more rounded view of their performance, exposing previously unperceived problems and successes.

5.3 Ofsted needs to uphold the standards of evidence required and ensure that its expectations and requirements are clear. Some schools are likely to continue needing its support in designing their self-evaluation arrangements and making best use of the results. Moreover, many schools will still want to be able to compare themselves to others in similar circumstances.

5.4 Taking these steps will contextualise self-evaluation, and ensure that a valid appraisal of strengths and weaknesses can be carried out with meaningful implications for the school’s development.

6. ANNEX I – ABOUT KIRKLAND ROWELL

6.1 From the surveyed opinions of over two million parents, Kirkland Rowell has identified the 20 areas that are important to parents in every school. These areas include school discipline, developing a pupil’s potential, quality of teaching and standards of facilities. For each of these core 20 parent priorities Kirkland Rowell measures both satisfaction and importance. Each survey also contains up to 19 additional areas of examination, to tailor the questionnaire to each school (15 of these are chosen from a menu and 4 can be unique and created by the school). The survey also rates parental satisfaction with each of the academic subjects offered at the schools and measures the time pupils spend on homework. The results are also weighted against what parents usually say in similar schools.

6.2 The pupil survey is made compatible with the parental survey (where the latter is carried out), and areas examined can also be tailored according to the school’s requirements.

6.3 The staff survey compares attitudes of staff to those of parents, and evaluates the perceptions of teaching staff with those of support staff. The survey also investigates staff-specific issues such as professional development, compares results with what staff usually say, and analyses the likely staff turnover in the next two years.

6.4 The reports identify the school’s priorities for improvement, measure the comparative importance of each of the issues surveyed, compare the rates of positive and negative responses received, show trends in responses, and analyse changing priorities as pupils get older.

7. ANNEX II – ABOUT THE RESEARCH INTO ATTITUDES TOWARDS SELF-EVALUATION

7.1 The dissertation research cited in this response was carried out by Marek Salling in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc in Marketing at Newcastle Business School at the University of Northumbria during June and July 2010. The dissertation is available on request.

7.2 The research premise was that self-evaluation should give schools vital information about how to raise standards, but that without marketing skills schools might not appreciate this. A quantitative study was performed using a survey of 46 original questions. The survey asked about attitudes towards self-evaluation, how it was performed, opinions concerning school improvement, and the culture of self-evaluation. The study concluded that the majority of headteachers had positive attitudes towards the concept of self-evaluation, although they did not necessarily agree with the way it was carried out in practice.

7.3 Of the 1400 headteachers contacted, 301 – or 21.5% – responded. The volume of responses was sufficient to be considered reliable and representative, but the respondents may nevertheless have exhibited particular biases, such as open-mindedness. The table below looks at the impact this bias may have had on the type of school within the sample. The Ofsted rating of the sample schools compared to the national trend (using the latest available data) shows a similar pattern although the proportions are different. This limitation is complicated by the decision to survey schools with more than 100 pupils because smaller schools tend to ask for parents’ opinions face-to-face, thereby limiting their ability to comment. The results are therefore directly applicable to the larger schools, that is, to 82% of primary schools in England.

October 2010