The Role and Performance of Ofsted

House of Commons Education Committee

The role and performance of Ofsted

Second Report of Session 2010–11

Volume III Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 23 March 2011

Published on 17 April 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The Education Committee

The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Education and its associated public bodies.

Membership at time Report agreed: Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) (Chair) Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Nic Dakin MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) Bill Esterson MP, (Labour, Sefton Central) Pat Glass MP (Labour, North West Durham) Damian Hinds MP (Conservative, East Hampshire) Charlotte Leslie MP (Conservative, Bristol North West) Ian Mearns MP (Labour, Gateshead) Tessa Munt MP (Liberal Democrat, Wells) Lisa Nandy MP (Labour, Wigan) Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/education-committee

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Kenneth Fox (Clerk), Elisabeth Bates (Second Clerk), Penny Crouzet (Committee Specialist), Benjamin Nicholls (Committee Specialist), Ameet Chudasama (Senior Committee Assistant), Kathryn Smith (Committee Assistant), Paul Hampson (Committee Support Assistant), and Brendan Greene (Office Support Assistant)

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Education Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6181; the Committee’s e-mail address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume III on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/education- committee)

1 London School of Islamics Ev w1 2 Sue Allen Ev w1 3 Dr Steve Austin Ev w2 4 Ruth Welsh Ev w5 5 Liz Rook Ev w6 6 D Baird, Nafferton Primary School Ev w6 7 Bob Prince MA Ev w7 8 Mike Bostock, New Media Learning Ev w8 9 Sheelagh Webster Ev w10 10 David Singleton OBE Ev w11 11 Landex Ev w13 12 DEA Ev w16 13 Shirley Finch Ev w17 14 CASCAiD Ev w18 15 Emeritus Professor Malyn Newitt Ev w19 16 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) Ev w21 17 Christopher Thomson, Principal, Brighton Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College Ev w23 18 Daycare Trust Ev w23 19 Chailey Heritage School Ev w27 20 Jonathan Prest, Principal of Barton Peveril Sixth Form College Ev w28 21 Dr John Oversby Ev w29 22 Martin Brader Ev w30 23 David Wright Ev w30 24 Frank Shore Ev w30 25 Incorporated Society of Musicians Ev w31 26 Michael Bassey Ev w32 27 Paul Carvin, Head of Raising Achievement Service, Gateshead Council Ev w34 28 Staffordshire County Council Ev w36 29 Jonathon Godfrey, Principal, Hereford Sixth Form College Ev w38 30 The Howard League for Penal Reform Ev w39 31 Governors of Heaton Manor School, Newcastle upon Tyne Ev w42 32 Newcastle College Group Ev w42 33 British Humanist Association Ev w45 34 Kidsunlimited Ev w48 35 Barnardo’s Ev w50 36 Essex County Council Early Years and Childcare Ev w51 37 Independent Association of Prep Schools (IAPS) Ev w52 38 Mr and Mrs Dominic Williams Ev w53

39 National Primary Heads Ev w56 40 Governing body and stakeholders of a faith based primary school Ev w57 41 SkillsActive Ev w58 42 Sense Ev w62 43 National Childminding Association Ev w64 44 The Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers Ev w66 45 Paul Neilson, FDA national officer and Jon Richards, UNISON national officer, on behalf of Trade Union Side (TUS) at Ofsted Ev w67 46 The Fostering Network Ev w69 47 The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Ev w71 48 Neil Roskilly, Chief Executive Officer, The Independent Schools Association Ev w72 49 Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum Ev w73 50 Association of National Specialist Colleges, Natspec Ev w74 51 The Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers Ev w76 52 Westminster City Council Ev w77 53 National Children’s Bureau (NCB) Ev w79 54 Buckinghamshire County Council Ev w82 55 Tony Lau-Walker, Chief Executive of Eastleigh College and Chair of the Windsor Group of Colleges Ev w85 56 The Royal Society of Chemistry Ev w87 57 Professor Dame Julia Higgins FRS, Chair, The Advisory Committee of Mathematics Education Ev w89 58 Wandsworth Council Ev w91 59 Rebecca Allen, Institute of Education, University of London and Simon Burgess, CMPO, University of Bristol Ev w93 60 NSPCC Ev w99 61 A+ Education Ltd Ev w103 62 The National Foundation for Educational Research Ev w105 63 Sam Preston Ev w109 64 Play England Ev w111 65 Ofsted Ev w114 66 British Association of Social Workers Ev w118 67 Boarding Schools’ Association and State Boarding Schools’ Association Ev w120 68 SCORE Ev w123 69 Special Educational Consortium Ev w125 70 Napo Ev w129 71 Stonewall Ev w135 72 The Food for Life Partnership Ev w138 73 National Association of Head Teachers Ev w145 74 Recruitment and Employment Confederation Ev w148 75 General Social Care Council Ev w150 76 National Union of Teachers Ev w154 77 Association of Colleges (AoC) Ev w162 78 Association of School and College Leaders Ev w167 79 Voice: the Union for Education Professionals Ev w170 80 HMC Ev w172

81 National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) Ev w174 82 The Association for Science Education Ev w176 83 National Governors’ Association Ev w177 84 Association of Governors of Independent Schools (AGBIS) Ev w180 85 Save the Children Ev w180 86 Independent Children’s Homes Association Ev w183 87 Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education Ev w185 88 Granada Learning Ev w185 89 Association for Tutors in Science Education Ev w189 90 Care Quality Commission Ev w191 91 General Teaching Council for England Ev w193 92 NASUWT Ev w196 93 Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ev w200 94 Oxfordshire County Council Ev w203 95 Children’s Food Campaign Ev w205 96 Institute of Physics Ev w207 97 Carrie Dunne Ev w207 98 Mrs Carole Thomson Ev w212 99 Angela Cross-Durrant Ev w212 100 CfBT, Tribal and Serco Ev w216 101 Association of Teachers and Lecturers Ev w220 102 Lancashire County Councillor John Shedwick, Chair of the county council’s Scrutiny Committee Ev w223 103 Ann Coffey MP Ev w224 104 National Day Nurseries Association Ev w225 105 Girls’ Schools Association Ev w228 106 Local Government Group Ev w229 107 Department for Education Ev w232 108 Institute of Education, University of London Ev w235 109 East Riding of Yorkshire Council Ev w237 110 Reading Borough Council Ev w238 111 Alan Quinn Ev w240 112 School Food Trust Ev w244 113 South East Association of the Directors of Children’s Services Ev w244 114 John Riley Ev w245 115 The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) Ev w246 116 Pam Barrow-Jones Ev w248 117 Professor Colin Richards Ev w248; 249 118 Dorothy Latham Ev w249 119 Katharine Birbalsingh Ev w250 120 Veale Wasbrough Vizards Ev w251

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Memorandum submitted by London School of Islamics Education is not for degrees and not for jobs. It is for life. Degrees and jobs should come as a by-product. Migrant Muslims are not economic slaves. They are part and parcel of British society with their own cultures, languages and faith. Migrant Muslims need to preserve and transmit their cultural, linguistic and spiritual identities; otherwise, they will be lost in the western jungle. Learning Arabic, Urdu and other community languages do not deter people from integrating. It helps them integrate. British schooling is at war with Migrant Muslims learning Arabic, Urdu and other community languages. Community cohesion has failed because there is a negative experience of mutual understanding and cooperation between the hostile host community and Muslim community. According to a French political sociologist, Muslims in Europe feel that they are not welcome. Inspite of official initiative, a significant minority see institutional racism across the board. Blatant racism exists in parts of the world of work. Religious intolerance is “the new racism” and one of the main causes of persecution of minorities. Terrorism efforts and economic marginalisation are increasingly being associated with religion, not ethnicity. In my opinion, British schooling has been producing Muslim youths with anger and frustration. According to a report, the majority of Islamist terrorists in the UK are British born and educated is under the age of 30, well educated and likely to be employed. Most terrorism in Britain is committed by home-grown terrorists. Britain’s fight against terrorism has been a disaster. It has alienated Muslim youths. The campaign has targeted non-violent Muslims and branded them as supporters of violence. Britain remains under severe risk from terror attacks. The government policy had made the task of the police harder by alienating Muslim youths. Bilingualism can help pupils’ all-round education and should be encouraged. Children who know an “eastern” as well as a “western” language are more academically able than others. With the pace at which the world interacts today, multi-lingualism is a step forward. Muslim community feels that state schools with non- Muslim monolingual teachers are not suitable for bilingual Muslim children. The number of Muslim schools is on the increase and I believe that by 2020 there will be more than 500 Muslim schools. Muslim schools give young children self-confidence and self-esteem in who they are and an understanding of Islamic teaching of tolerance and respect which prepares them for a positive and fullfilling role in society. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be opted out as Muslim Academies. Bilingual Muslim children need bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim monolingual teacher in a Muslim school. The present structure of OFSTED is not in a position to inspect Muslim schools properly. There is a dire need for bilingual Muslim Inspectors for the inspection of Muslim schools. Non-Muslim monolingual Inspectors are not in a position to inspect Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim children. OFSTED should employ bilingual Muslim inspectors for the inspection of Muslim schools who should not only be well versed in English, Arabic, Urdu and other community languages but also in sciences and humanities. Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in Standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. The problem is that they learn English in the streets and in the playgrounds. British schooling does not teach English to migrant children. The teachers let them speak the same accent in the classroom. They have no courage to stop them or correct them. This is one of the main reasons why one third of children have difficulties with reading when they leave primary schools. Majority of such children are bilingual Muslims. They often speak “street” with its own grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. In other European countries and in the sub-continent argot and slang are not allowed into the classrooms. In Britain primary school teachers do not feel that it's role to interfere with self- expression in any shape or form. They encourage children to read poems and stories written in ethnic dialects. Bilingual Muslim teachers are in a better position to teach English to their children. August 2010

Memorandum submitted by Sue Allen I am a Deputy Manager in a 53 place day care facility in Surrey. I have over 10 years experience in childcare, I have a degree in Childhood Studies and have obtained my Early Years Professional Status. In response to your enquiries regarding Ofsted and a single inspectorate. Yes I do agree there should only be one national inspectorate after all you can only have one ﬁnal answer from one organisation. However Ofsted Inspectors must be trained to a minimum of degree level and should have obtained their EYP status and should have had some sort of experience with early years or else how can they possibly comment on the performance of a setting. Quite recently our setting was visited by Ofsted, the young lady was very approachable and had a list of questions to follow but did not have a detailed knowledge of early years. After commenting that I had obtained my EYP status she did not even know what this was! It was not noted in our Ofsted report and when I rang to complain was told it didn't matter because although I worked at the setting I wasn't the manager so they wouldn’t be changing anything! cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Education Committee: Evidence

Any single Inspectorate needs to have the respect and authority to be able to deliver the service, that is to be able to access settings and have the knowledge base and experience to give a balanced and fair view. August 2010

Memorandum submitted by Dr Steve Austin Time to put Ofsted on Notice to Improve Time spent as a local authority adviser and School Improvement Partner has left one former primary headteacher disillusioned with the Ofsted inspection system. I must have been very lucky that during my time as a primary school headteacher, I had good experiences of Ofsted inspectors. In the main, they were polite, courteous even, when delivering difﬁcult messages; they were credible with recent and relevant experience which enabled them to make judgements with authority; they were consistent in giving judgements which were not at variance with the school’s own self-evaluation or the views of local authority advisers. The staff that I worked with felt that the inspections we went through together were fair, professionally conducted, and came to the correct judgements. After three years as a School Improvement Partner, I am disappointed and angry with a system that is on the brink of failure.

Widespread inconsistency I am finding more and more education professionals who are becoming part of a growing consensus that suggests that Ofsted inspections are inconsistent in their judgements. The government operates in a way which depends upon different teams of Ofsted inspectors and HMI giving consistent judgements. Politicians and governors naively believe that Ofsted inspection is a scientific process and the same outcome would be achieved no matter who the inspectors were or what their personalities. Almost no headteachers believe that this consistency exists. It has always been the case that there are differences between individual inspectors and inspection teams. There will always be a certain human element to this process. However, I am convinced that such issues are getting worse rather than better. There does seem to have been a significant increase in inspections whose judgements are questioned by heads, governors, local authority advisers (and even internally by some Ofsted inspectors and HMI). I recently attended a continuous professional development session for School Improvement Partners. This was attended by over 100 SIPs from my region. At one point, a brave SIP took the floor and spoke out about the inconsistency of Ofsted inspections. She received spontaneous applause and a standing ovation. She had put into words what we were all thinking. The inconsistency works both ways. Schools receive the “outstanding” grade from an Ofsted inspection when the local authority does not agree. Other schools in the opinion of the local authority do not receive the outstanding grade when they ought to have done. Schools are placed into Ofsted categories of special measures and notice to improve when this is a complete surprise to the local authority and other schools avoid such a fate by being given a “satisfactory” verdict. The fact that the local authority advisers and school improvement partners disagree with an Ofsted judgement does not of itself make Ofsted wrong. However, I can verify from experience in my own local authority that discrepancies are definitely on the increase. At the very least this leaves headteachers confused as to what is expected. There is a growing feeling that the system has essentially become a lottery. A school’s Ofsted grade is considered to be more luck than judgement. Ofsted’s management will refute these claims but the old industry adage that “perception is reality” is a feature of the management theories and books from the world of commerce, industry and retail. Surely it is time for Ofsted to look carefully at itself and see the need to improve. I recently met with a Regional Director of Ofsted. She was very relaxed about my suggestion of inconsistency and simply said: “There will always be some inconsistency.” To a certain extent this is true but do Ofsted inspectors and their managers fully understand the devastating consequences for a school community and headteacher of erroneous or unnecessarily harsh judgements? I wish I had been talking to an Ofsted senior leader who was prepared to say: “not on my watch” rather than take a complacent “well, what can you do?” attitude.

Credibility I firmly believe that during my time as a headteacher, I experienced a gradual but significant increase in the credibility of inspectors. I became a primary school headteacher in the early days of Ofsted’s inception. I considered the very first Ofsted team that I encountered to be professional and correct in their judgements but they were a team made up of people who were of a secondary school background. All subsequent inspections that I experienced were conducted by people with experience as primary school heads and most were still practising. I welcomed this change to a more credible Ofsted workforce. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w3

I am in dismay that we seem to have gone full circle. Perhaps as a result of some recruitment crisis or shortage of suitable candidates, we appear to have lost sight of the need for credibility and recent, relevant experience in our inspectors. There are so many inspectors now carrying out Ofsted audits of our schools who are without the kind of experience which should be a minimum expectation that I believe it is no exaggeration to state that this is a disgrace. A small primary school which I support was recently inspected by someone who had been out of school for many, many years and whose last post was as Principal of a Sixth Form college. I thought those days had gone but they are back and with a vengeance. It is not at all uncommon to ﬁnd myself at Ofsted feedback sessions being led by inspectors who do not have any recent and relevant experience of the kind of school that they are inspecting and therefore have no authority to make judgements that the head, governors and staff will take seriously. This leads to a situation where what is being judged and what is being required in terms of recommendations for improvement is not set in the context of any real understanding of what it is like to work in a primary school or any understanding of the job of a headteacher. Having been through accreditation as a School Improvement Partner and having worked alongside an excellent team of SIPs, it seems to me that the government and National College for School Leadership has made a determined effort to ensure that SIPs are people with credible experience. It is a huge shame that Ofsted does not appear to have taken any such steps.

Manner and conduct

In the early days of Ofsted, we did have some mavericks. We allowed some unsuitable people to become Ofsted inspectors. The need to establish a Code of Conduct came out of understanding reached by Ofsted’s management that all was not well and some, power-crazy, authoritarian people with bullying tendencies had slipped through the net and become inspectors. There was a time when Ofsted’s management seemed to care about such matters and took ﬁrm action to strike off unsuitable inspectors whose manner and way of dealing with schools and headteachers was unacceptable. Whatever one thinks of Sir Chris Woodhead and his time as HMCI, this was an area where he was particularly passionate and diligent. He did a lot to root out unsuitable inspectors who ought not to have been allowed to continue to inspect our schools. I am convinced that this passion and diligence, born of a view that excellence is standard and only the best people should inspect our schools, has disappeared. Perhaps this is another victim of a perceived recruitment crisis. As a head, I never had occasion to complain about the conduct of inspectors. As an adviser, I have become involved in far too many examples of sheer bad manners, inappropriate comments, poor social skills and inspectors whose manner brings shame on the inspection system. And yet they continue to work. Even after serious complaints and even after very rare overturned judgements and voided inspections some people who should not be allowed to inspect schools continue with seeming impunity.

Complaints

I seem to be describing a crisis in which several inspectors, totally unsuitable for the role, are breaking their own code of conduct and engaging in conversations with staff in schools which can only be described as downright rude. How can this be? Surely Ofsted has an established system of feedback and formal complaints? Is it not the case that, according to Ofsted’s own feedback data, the vast majority of school’s are satisﬁed with their inspections? Let me put this as bluntly as possible: headteachers generally do not complain. I have come across many heads who are given perfectly appropriate cause to complain but choose not to. There are many reasons for this lack of willingness to complain or to give critical feedback. One comes from Ofsted itself and its own propaganda. There is an Ofsted publication on how schools which are placed into special measures go about effective and rapid improvement. One of its points is that the schools which make the most rapid improvement are those which do not waste time complaining or questioning the Ofsted judgements but rather get on with the business of tackling the issues for improvement. Such a publication actively discourages complaint and negative feedback. Another reason is that an Ofsted inspection, even one with short notice, is a stressful time for headteachers, staff and governors. There is a great sense of relief when it is all over. Most heads want to move on and not go back over the details of how it was conducted and whether or not it was correct in its judgements. Even in those schools that have a good case for complaining, headteachers rarely do any such thing. In my own local authority and in my own schools, I have been involved in trying to persuade heads to complain formally or to use the feedback process to make negative comments. Most choose not to. It is very hard to get them to put pen to paper and record the poor behaviour of Ofsted inspectors and HMI. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w4 Education Committee: Evidence

There is a fear among some headteachers. Will complaining make matters worse for my school? Will we be perceived as people who cannot accept Ofsted ﬁndings? Will we be re-visited by an early re-inspection? Will our complaints be noted, recorded and count against us in future?

We have all got used to the culture where there is no appeal. In so many walks of life there is some kind of fair appeals process which allows people to exercise a fundamental democratic right to a second opinion. Headteachers know that they can appeal against their SATs results if they feel that the markers have got them wrong; but there is no appeal against Ofsted judgements.

The idea that there was no appeal against Ofsted inspection judgements was not such a bad thing in the days when Ofsted inspectors were credible; when Ofsted’s management was determined to root out arrogant and inappropriate behaviour; and when there was more consistency. But now this aspect of the Ofsted framework must be reviewed.

Ofsted does not know itself. Its framework for feedback and complaints is abysmal and schools have no conﬁdence in it. It is an organisation which has not set out proactively to seek views on its performance but relies on a discredited system to applaud itself that there are very few complaints.

I wonder what would happen if we did have a genuine appeals system. I believe that there would be a very large number of appeals, which is why the expense and time-consuming nature of such a system is greatly resisted by Ofsted. But I think it is absolutely necessary and as long as one does not exist Ofsted will continue to have a grossly erroneous and complacent view of itself as highly regarded.

Management and communication

The move towards a new framework from September 2009, has exacerbated the fault lines. There are serious problems built into the inspection system as it is managed at the moment and these will not be solved by the new framework. Ofsted does not know what is wrong with it as an institution and therefore is making no attempt to deal with its weaknesses which will be there just as much if not more so under the new framework.

Acting on behalf of my local authority, which was one of the pilots for the new framework, I have been actively involved in meetings related to the development of the new framework. One thing has become abundantly clear to me: Ofsted’s senior management is seriously ﬂawed.

There is very poor communication between the Ofsted regional ofﬁces and the inspection contractors. I came across numerous examples, far too numerous to list in this article, of Ofsted contractors and inspectors on the ground not carrying out reforms in the manner in which Ofsted’s senior leaders had assured us they would. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Some of the senior leaders and HMI mare in fact the very people who are the subject of much complaint because of their off-hand and arrogant manner when carrying out inspections. Many of Ofsted’s regional senior leaders suffer from exactly the kind of lack of credibility (as a result either of long years away from the job of teaching or lack of any relevant experience) that bedevils out current inspection teams.

The gulf between Ofsted expectations and what is actually happening in perfectly good schools is wider than it has ever been.

Ofsted does not know itself

What does Ofsted expect of our schools? That they should know themselves well and evaluate their performance effectively and accurately. That they should be rigorous in their search for feedback and seek out actively even the critical voices and the hard to reach parents and pupils so gaining a fully rounded view of how the institution is perceived. That they attract the right staff with relevant qualiﬁcations and experience suitable for their job. That they safeguard their pupils by employing only those staff who behave appropriately, avoiding those teachers who have a bullying mentality or a draconian approach to discipline. That they have an effective and transparent complaints procedure which encourages, rather than deters, honest comment. That they strive for improvement and accept that only the best will do.

I am only asking that as an institution and system, Ofsted expects of itself what it expects of schools. That is why I think that the organisation needs a Notice to Improve. August 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w5

Memorandum submitted by Ruth Welsh

Inspection has become an over blown industry that provides tax-paid consultants to providers of education and children’s social and day care.

All of these providers should already have robust quality assurance systems in place, to ensure they are meeting the legal requirements.

Whilst QA systems require external validation this does not have to be via Ofsted. Ofsted’s role should be to check that such systems are in place (ie that the provider is meeting their management responsibilities) and that the QA systems are being regularly externally validated. This would shift the cost of inspection onto a private validation system that would be paid for by the provider. (Of course, if necessary, the private validation system could in turn be overseen by a body such as Ofsted, but this would be a much cheaper proposition than inspecting all children’s services themselves—even if, as now, some of these inspections are carried out by contractors).

There is a much better role for Ofsted as the regulator of children’s services—they should concentrate their efforts on ensuring that those registered (licensed) are capable, suitable people who have the background and knowledge to provide these very important services. This should be an extremely robust process, not rubber stamping as it is now, and ensure that the process ensures extensive protection measures for children, with appropriate screening of applicants and their staff. If this is done well, it minimses the need for later (expensive) intervention, either in terms of advice and support, often known as inspection, or legal enforcement. This process can be made self funding, with fees reﬂecting costs. Although these may be high, it would help to “weed out” those not serious about undergoing what should be a very rigorous process, and ensure only those really committed actually apply.

The other role as regulator is to react with sufﬁcient vigour to non compliance issues, ensuring that those who turn out to be less than capable, for whatever reason, are removed from delivering services as quickly as possible (to prevent harm and damage to the life chances children and young people) instead of, as now, continuing to support providers and give too many chances for improvement to failing services through the inspection (consultancy) route. The current emphasis is too much on protecting the provider from their shortcomings and helping them to stay in business instead of recognising the impact these shortcomings have on children. We canot allow the quality argument to be overcome by the need for quantity, if we are serious about providing children and young people with the best possible chances in life.

In line with the Big Society ethos, parents and staff could become inspectors (the eyes and ears) and report shortcomings and concerns to the regulator.

This new style of regulation could equally be applied to the new Free Schools and Academies.

The removal of Inspection and Registration of all services from Local Authority control has not worked well.

Inspectors are far less efﬁcient than they were, making them far more expensive, they are having to travel ridiculous distances for a short piece of work, have little to no local knowledge with which to ensure proportionality of their interventions and are disconnected from the child protection services. Inspectors in local authorities used to meet a programme of two inspections every year and ‘pop in’ visits, to all services, with a full written report; they would investigate all complaints, have good local knowledge and be accessible to the public, run training courses and provide advice and support at the beginning of the registration process, to ensure that those not capable were “counselled out” of applying, instead of having to be refused, with the concommitant expensive legal appeals processes.

Since moving the national bodies inspection are carried out only once every three years for childcare; the inspectors have no relationship with either those they inspect or the local parents (or service users) which was always useful, as a regulator, in order to gather “intelligence” and antipate problems. The inspectors are supported by vastly inﬂated administrative teams because they working from home on computers with a database that is so ineffectual. The advice and support is still provided by local authorities, but, because of their staff’s (now) poor understanding of regulation, this often wrong and misleading.

At the end of each programme cycle(every three years), there is a mad rush to complete the inspection programme, meaning inspections are carried out in a rushed and hurried manner and are virtually worthless.

In order to meet the purpose of providing a national picture of the quality of provision, it would have been cheaper and more effective to leave the regulation and inspection with local authorities and put in place a reporting system to collate such information.

Perhaps it might be time to consider whether those reponsibilities should be returned to local authorities, where they would be so much closer to local people. August 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w6 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Liz Rook I am responding to your request for written submissions on whether the inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support child learning and welfare should be conducted by a single inspectorate. I have been a Head for 20 years and have a fair knowledge of the way OFSTED has worked in schools in that time. I have been Head of a special school and now am Head of a maintained Nursery School. I have always worked with and not against the inspection regime believing that it is a necessary tool to ensure both the quality and consistency of education across the country and to ensure that children and parents are getting the best service possible. That said I have been experiencing growing apprehension about the demands being made of my school by OFSTED recently and have written to Liz Elsom at OFSTED about this. I share with you the scrutiny under which my school has been put in recent years which I believe results from an overly complex system of inspection and regulation. — In 2006 my Nursery School was inspected under by Ofsted under section 5. (Good with outstanding features) — In July 2009 the same Nursery was inspected, this time under the Early Years Inspection regime. (Outstanding) — In January 2010 the same Nursery was inspected again—under a section 5. (Outstanding) — In April 2010 the same Nursery was visited by another inspector wishing to carry out an Early Years Inspection. I suggested that this was not acceptable in view of the visit three months earlier and the inspector left. — This year I am expecting to be inspected again, but this time as a Children’s Centre (Nursery School plus the Day Nursery and Crèche for which we are now responsible.) Clearly all of this puts everyone under continuing, additional stress. It also means that much time that could be used much more creatively to develop our Centre and the staff who work so hard for us. Our quality has always been found to be at least good but the amount of attention we are receiving is deﬁnitely not in inverse proportion to our success! And perhaps we could be even more “successful” without having to be in this constant state of readiness for OFSTED. August 2010

Memorandum submitted by D Baird, Nafferton Primary School 1. Purpose OFSTED has become an organisation that has grown beyond its original brief. In the new framework for example “Community Cohesion” was added as an area to be inspected, it took a long time to work out exactly what this was and how it was going to be inspected. The ﬁrst year of inspections went well with most schools coming out as “Good” so the goal posts were moved. If schools are doing it (a) why did they inspect it in the ﬁrst place; and (b) change the goal post. We are wasting time pleasing OFSTED and not teaching children.

2. Impact As well as ﬁlling in the SEF—Self Evaluation Form—schools have a school improvement plan, it is this document that moves a school forward not OFSTED. We have a duplication of documents and the SEF does not work as a tool for improvement. OFSTED action plans can lead to improvement, but generally have only one or two areas for development and will be out of date by the next inspection.

3. Performance Unfortunately lots of schools do not report poor performance because they are so delighted the event is over. A lot is down to the team you get.

4. Consistency I suggest that you have look at the safeguarding issue related to the height of fencing.

5. Role of OFSTED inProvidingGreater Accountability At present we have termly meetings from school improvement partners; these are people who know the school and the local area. I ﬁnd that these people hold schools and head teachers to account, but they also cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w7

provide guidance and support. I ﬁnd that the School Improvement Partner is helpful in moving the school forward, where as OFSTED are an event that you get through and hope you survive. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Bob Prince MA Budget and the“political football”, Education If there is any merit in cutting budgets in education, then prime candidates for cutting must surely include the backroom services including inspection, curriculum development* (see para 14), and testing. 1. Within primary and secondary education the most feared and hated department of government is OFSTED. Previous to its invention the function of school inspection was carried out by the benign and (some might say), largely ineffectual, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI).1 The Inspectorate prior to OFSTED had the merit of being, in real terms, extremely cheap to run and had an in-built control of costs. If budgets were tight, fewer inspections were done and then, only needed, if real problems arose within particular schools. Inspections of schools were carried out under the management of the local authorities. 2. OFSTED however, has been conceived as an altogether different tool of government and as I hope to demonstrate does not have as its primary purpose, the monitoring of the performance of schools (and other organisations). The primary purpose of OFSTED has been to impose a politically based ideology on the education system within the UK. I do not propose at this point to discuss the merits, or otherwise of the ideological regime other than to identify it. I do hope to shed light on the question as to whether we need OFSTED at all. 3. OFSTED was created in 1992 by John Major’s government to enhance the work of the HMI. The over arching political ideology operated by this and the previous Conservative administration at this time was broadly, to find ways of enabling markets, rather than the state, to provide economic solutions to problems of government. Using market economics as a guiding principle of government the problem arose, as to how the principles of the market could be applied to social functions, such as education run by government. 4. Education was a particularly difficult problem. As a proportion of the revenue spent by government the education service was an enormous slice. What was more intractable was that even though education cost such a lot of money, the tax payer had no way of understanding what value they were getting from education since the outcomes were to a large extent un-measurable. Furthermore, education experts were divided as to what constituted success when applied to education. Most education professionals were agreed that the one thing education was not about, was to supply the market with functionaries with which to run the commercial life of the nation… it was much more than that. 5. Government by market economics was faced by an ideological impasse when applied to education. How could it apply market principles when (after all), it was supplying money to an education establishment demonstrating serious reservations about the application of market economics to the field of education? The solution adopted was to run an education service bound to a systemic analogy with the market with measured outcomes (profits) driven by the possibility of catastrophic failure, school closures (bankruptcy), or “special measures” (administration). 6. As a measure of the effectiveness of schooling, exam results attained in the final years of secondary education prior to 1992 left much to be desired. Pupils, whose early education was unsatisfactory, were just not represented by those results and therefore, exam results had little relationship to the quality of schooling in the early years. Conversely, a good early education meant that the final results might reflect just that, rather than the quality of secondary schooling. The old 11+ examination, which at least exposed primary education’s role in measured results could not be re-adopted because of the lack of political will to reinstate selection for secondary education. The government of the time therefore introduced the electorate to a whole new set of concepts in state education provision. 7. The first of these was parental choice. If a child’s school did not perform satisfactorily parents could take them to another school, just as in the market people could take their custom elsewhere. Secondly, continuous measurement of the school’s (not the child’s) performance with annual testing of every year (except the 1st) of schooling measured against targets set by the state and not by the school (SAT). Thirdly, inspection by both education professionals & professionals drawn from business and other outside interests (OFSTED). 8. It is my belief that, SATs results become analogous to the currency of an education market with currency value being set by the target for each year of pupils’ education. 9. I also propose that in the same way, OFSTED inspection became analogous to the audit carried out for shareholders with the primary purpose of making sure that the company (tax payers) derive maximum profit from their investment. OFSTED inspections therefore become an extremely powerful way of defining the 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofsted. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w8 Education Committee: Evidence

detailed running of schools, the meaning of their activities and cultivating wider public perception of the value of particular schools to their communities. Publication of the results of OFSTED inspections and the derived SAT results is seen to have a direct relationship to application for school places, which in turn, affects the viability of the school. In theory… we have a market. 10. How expensive is that market to run? How strong is the value of its currency? Do its customers get the best value for money? Do they really know what they want? Are they the real customers? I cannot hope to answer these questions, although, in relation to expense there are some answers. The unavoidable costs of the education system are: Accommodation (except where distance learning is a viable option). Teachers. Media (books, materials, wax tablets…etc.). All the rest is advisable but not necessary and not always necessary in the forms that have been adopted. 11. It would for instance, be unwise to abandon an overall inspection system for schools where expectations of standards in education are national rather than local. Is it necessary to minutely inspect as frequently the detailed performance of every school as we do now? Could we not trust schools to be run by professionals and only inspect them if there is cause for concern? The latter course of action would be dramatically less expensive than the current regime. 12. The SATs assessment, is perceived by teachers as disruptive, often meaningless and inaccurate as a method of measuring schools and pupil’s progress. Perhaps the greatest criticism of the SA Tests is they have little to do with the outcomes of education, many of which take a whole lifetime to develop. Pupils do not progress in a linear fashion in their perception and understanding of life, although, evidence of progression makes for a satisfying statistical pattern. Anecdotally, SAT tests are prone to statistical manipulation by all those involved, at all levels of the administration of education, because, it is in everyone’s interest to demonstrate progress, year on year by individuals and by whole schools. 13. It is not surprising that the teaching profession is almost in a state of mutiny on the question of whether SATs should be carried out. The tests are expensive to administer, (although perhaps not as expensive as decreasing the pupil/teacher ratio, a measure, which would really be effective in increasing literacy levels within schools). There is therefore a serious question as to the cost effectiveness of SATs as they are now run. If they are not producing meaningful evidence of achievement, why assess in this manner at all? 14. *In tandem, national curriculum development also seems to have expanded under successive administrations to the point to which, its cost-effectiveness is open to question. I do not however have sufficient knowledge of its detailed operation and costs to discuss it here. 15. It seems that in a field, which is in essence all about content, that of education, ideology has run roughshod over the content itself, restricting it to specific targets to be satisfied by specific timescales. 16. OFSTED should therefore be recognised for what it is, a tool for imposing a political ideology on the field of education. Even if one broadly agrees with the principles of that ideology the organisation is an expensive luxury which does not deliver front-line services to its clients, school-children. 17. Without some form of inspection possible some schools would, over a period of time, decline as management slipped into complacency. However, we should also trust that, classroom teachers are highly motivated civil servants whom, almost all have the best interests of their pupils at heart. We should therefore, abolish OFSTED and its “currency” SATs and return to the regime of a much smaller cohort of (nationally managed) inspectors who only step in when problems emerge. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Mike Bostock, New Media Learning Introduction The author has been a teacher, a school improvement adviser and has been a team member during the inspections of 30 secondary schools, two primary schools and one adult education institute. This submission relates only to the inspection of secondary and primary schools.

What thePurposes ofInspectionShould be (Relating notOnly toSchools but to all Organisations,Settings andServicesUnder Ofsted’sRemit) One of the main purposes of inspection should be to ensure that the quality of educational provision is consistent, of sufﬁcient quality and range, and meets statutory requirements. It should also ensure that the leadership is discharging its duties, an important one being to exercise its quality assurance role in maintain the highest standards of teaching. Whilst much can be deduced by examining remotely school examination data, that data does not provide any evidence of current standards, eg of Year 11. An important reason for visiting schools therefore is to judge current standards. However, there is tension between making inspections lean and cost-effective, and ensuring that sufﬁcient evidence is collected. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w9

One important recommendation for revising the role of Ofsted would be to elevate school self-evaluation to a standardised process and incentivise schools to publish an annual report covering their analysis of attainment, achievement, progress and teaching quality. Where schools do this, the role of Ofsted will be to validate the school’s ﬁndings. This move could be assisted by running a national programme to support all schools in undertaking systematic self-evaluation using the Ofsted criteria.

TheImpact of theInspectionProcess onSchoolImprovement The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy Schools are expected to undertake self-evaluation but there is wide differences in the way that they do this; often with less effective schools doing it less well than effective ones. Addressing this issue would be an activity that would support the improvement of less effective schools by helping them make evaluation more effective. Spot inspections of teaching can cause unnecessary stress and will usually be unrepresentative of teaching over time. Schools should be encouraged to undertake standardised lesson observations of all teachers using Ofsted criteria. Schools should not be required to publish individual reports on teachers’ performance, but they should publish information about the range between the best and least best teaching and information showing how they are addressing the less-effective teaching. The TDA and NCSL has produced reports showing that “Within School Variation” (WSV) ie inconsistency of provision, notably teaching quality, is higher in the UK education system than anyway else within the OECD. Much research has been done to show how schools can tackle it with the consequence of providing greater fairness and consistent learning quality, no matter which teacher a pupil has. The TDA has produced an excellent draft manual on tackling WSV. Teachers’ TV has reported on successful work in schools. If negative variation in the performance of some subjects, or some classes was eliminated through the effective evaluation of teaching, and quality support for professional development, the estimates are that standards would rise considerably. Within School Variation has been described as “Education’s Greatest Challenge”. It is time it was tackled.

ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarrying out itsWork The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process The weight given to different factors within the inspection process Ofsted needs to get to the bottom of how data should be used to evaluate schools: 1. We cannot use pupil attainment on its own to determine if a school is good or not, or else selective schools would always be good and special schools would always be inadequate. The “attainment profile” for a school can tell us a lot about the intake of a school, but far less reliably how good the school was in educating those pupils. 2. We need to judge “school provision” separately from the impact that it has. Some pupils will not be able to take advantage of what even the most exceptional of schools can offer, no matter how hard everyone tries. To deduce school quality only from exam results is lazy and imprecise. 3. We should not “adjust” the scores of schools based on the proportions of pupils that are in categories known to underachieve at a national level, as they do with “CVA”. Pupils from deprived areas or categories known to underachieve can do as well as other pupils—where schools are successful in specialising in their particular needs. 4. Progress is a key way to compare the value added by different schools, but the inspection process does not yet acknowledge the relative difficulty that different schools have in achieving similar levels of progress with different categories of pupil. 5. Pupil “Achievement” is a better, broader way to look at the totality of what a pupil has gained from their school’s provision but it is not clearly defined in the Evaluation Schedule. 6. The emphasis on league tables encourages schools to make curriculum choices which make the school look better rather than do the best job for its pupils. 7. The test of the criteria for defining an “Outstanding” school is that it should place at the top of the list those schools that achieve the most despite operating in the most difficult circumstances. If we always see selective schools at the top of the list and not any of the 12 Outstanding schools operating in difficult circumstances reported on by Ofsted (see “Excelling against the Odds”) then we know that the criteria for judging the very best UK schools are still in need of further review. 8. The evaluation of the work of schools is not yet strongly linked to the success of its pupils once they have left school. We should collect evidence fm students for each of three years after they have left school about how well the school prepared them for life after school and use this as evidence to judge the worth of the school. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w10 Education Committee: Evidence

9. The frequent use of the term “take into account” in the Ofsted evaluation Schedule leaves too much scope for interpretation in an evaluation schedule that is otherwise very detailed and precise. Inspectors and schools need greater guidance on how to evaluate achievement, and how to take into consideration where good provision is having less impact than expected.

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate No information is offered on this point. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Sheelagh Webster I wish to submit the following based on my personal experiences of Ofsted as a Primary School Headteacher for 13 years, a Primary School governor for three years and an ITT visiting tutor for four years. 1. The purposes of Ofsted should be to: 1.1 Provide all interested parties with an assurance of quality based on detailed examination and analysis of performance, particularly in relation to self evaluation 1.2 Provide an independent, external view of a school’s performance and the National picture 1.3 Support schools in the improvement process through dialogue, comparative data and examples of good practice 1.4 Endorse/challenge schools’ self evaluation process 1.5 Ensure standards are maintained 2. The impact of Ofsted on school improvement should be to: 2.1 Enable schools to build on success and address areas requiring improvement 2.2 Energise though endorsement and redirection 3. The performance of Ofsted should be to: 3.1 Be non threatening and supportive by offering a consultancy/advisory service 3.2 Work with Local Authorities to support them in their monitoring role 3.3 Work alongside the senior management teams in all aspects of the process 3.4 Provide greater support and follow up work with schools identified as having significant weaknesses ie less condemnation, more support 3.5 Listen to the views of all stakeholders and staff 3.6 In order to achieve these aims Ofsted should reconsider its role and rename its process as a “Review” or “Evaluation” rather than inspection. It needs to gain the trust of educators and work in partnership with them. 4. The consistency and quality of teams carrying out their role should be achieved by: 4.1 Requesting detailed feedback related to each aspect of the process and an opportunity provided to discuss this with a central department collating the evidence/ratings 4.2 Shadowing teams at least once per year 4.3 Providing rigorous and regular training for team members 4.4 Providing detailed guidance 4.5 Providing a robust “Complaints” procedure 4.6 Providing a framework that remains fixed 5. The weight given to different factors within the process should: 5.1 Relate to the quality of educational provision in terms of teaching and learning through core and foundation subjects as well as enrichment programmes 5.2 Take account of achievement in its broadest sense across all areas of learning and experiences 5.3 Not give undue weight to safeguarding 6. Should there be a single inspectorate of all organisations, settings, and services to support children’s learning and welfare? 6.1 Ofsted should investigate the work of all settings and organisations that are involved in the educational process for comparison purposes but not those whose primary purpose is not educational. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w11

7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools with greater autonomy should be: 7.1 Exactly the same as that for all other schools in order to achieve its purpose in relation to the education of all children and to provide a representative National picture. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by David Singleton OBE, former HM Inspector, retired early from Ofsted in 2005 as Deputy Director (Education) The Purpose of Inspection: This has not, and should not change: it is to provide expert judgements on a range of services for: service users, decision-makers and the public, in order to inform educational debate, provide assurance to parents and others, and support continuous improvement in services. The impact of inspection on school improvement: This remains in principle hard to demonstrate, because so many other factors are involved and therefore, for Ofsted and those who believe in it, uncomfortably imponderable. Ofsted’s attempts to report on its own contribution to improvement have convinced few. Interestingly, this scepticism is less widely shared abroad, where Ofsted is perceived in my experience as the market leader in school evaluation. The main reason for the move to Section 5 inspections in 2005 (apart from the need to reduce the cost and burden on schools of inspection) was to increase, and in the process make more publicly visible, the impact of Ofsted on improvement. There has been no obvious evidence of any such increase in impact. GCSE and A level performance continues to improve, but not at a strikingly accelerated rate; children’s performance in the core subjects at all levels continues to give cause for concern, as does the stubborn gap between the highest and lowest performing students and the correlation between that variability and social background. There is little doubt that Ofsted has been one of the factors contributing to a gradual rise in measurable school standards over a decade and a half, but it is almost certainly still impossible to disentangle its precise contribution from the other factors involved. Overall, it would be difﬁcult to argue with Michael Barber’s view that Ofsted’s impact on school improvement lost intensity and focus with the resignation of Chris Woodhead in 2000. It has never regained the same impetus. The Performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work: This has in one sense been consistently good, at least so far as schools, FE and teacher education are concerned. Ofsted is a can-do organisation. It has repeatedly met apparently impossible targets, within its allocated budget. The inspection cycles have all been completed to deadlines, sometimes despite those deadlines being brought forward and in spite of savings being required, and made. Ofsted publishes voluminously on all areas of education and training, maintains one of the most frequently visited websites in the world, and offers advice to decision-makers on a vast range of issues. Nevertheless, I have some misgivings. With regard to school inspections, Ofsted has arguably lost sight, post 2005, of the original strategic intentions of the reform which I led. The purpose of Section 5 inspection was to promote more rapid improvement in schools by improving the quality and incisiveness of inspection, through a more equal partnership with the private insopection providers, and by setting inspection in the context of local intelligence about schools (“more intelligent accountability”), focused on the Local Managing Inspector— a role that would have provided a leadership opportunity for the most competent HMI, but which was in the event never put in place. Ofsted has almost completely lost sight of these intentions. Inspection has become cheaper and less intrusive, but certainly not more incisive; section 5 was never meant to be more than a reality check. To be effective, it requires a hinterland of qualitative and statistical information for inspectors to analyse and check against their own perceptions. Ofsted has continued to work on performance statistics, though the CVA methodology is open to question, and the recent guidance has done much, by pegging qualitative judgement, to performance data, to undermine the rationale for inspection itself. One head teacher known to me sought to engage her lead inspector (and HMI) in serious debate about the judgement of attainment in her school. The response was: “I’ve got a little grid, which I have to follow.” That is asinine, but probably not uncommon. And Ofsted has done nothing to construct networks of local intelligence. At the same time, Ofsted has not in fact moved towards a more collaborative relationship with the inspection providers. Its approach is still determinedly regulatory, and the emphasis has been almost entirely on the minutiae of text, in order to achieve uniformity of product between schools. In one sense, this is entirely appropriate: where inspectors see the same evidence, they ought to make the same judgements, but they ought also to recognise, and make clear in their reports, that no two schools are the same. It has become all too clear that the “safe” way to satisfy the regulator is to check consistency of text, and that the easiest way to do this is to regurgitate the judgement criteria. In this way, the Inspector’s back is covered, and the regulator is equally exempt from criticism, but what is lost is the individuality of the school. All that can in fact be inferred from school reports is that the school has met the criteria for a particular grade, but if that is the case there is no point in the text; one might has well just award the grade, with a gloss. What it all amounts to is that Ofsted has mistaken the true product of inspection. This is not merely a well- written report, but the improvement generated by the inspection in the school. To achieve any improvement, inspectors must feel free to tell the school something it hasn’t though of , something it has ceased to notice or something it wishes to forget. Far more of what is written in reports ought to consist of recommendations, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w12 Education Committee: Evidence

which should be detailed, specific and unequivocal (qualities the official guidance has guarded against). There is no point whatever in telling a school “improve mathematics”. It can be assumed that it will be attempting to do so; it may not know how. If inspectors cannot give it some help, it is hard to see what they add. The help would not of course be ex parte advice and certainly not “coat-trailing”. Rather, it should be detailed diagmosis: “it is going wrong here.” Post-Woodhead, Ofsted has lacked the intellectual leadership to sense that things were going subtly wrong and to do something about it. There has been a confusion between hitting targets and meeting objectives. This vitiates not only the day-to-day inspection work, but also the many good practice publications Ofsted issues. Many, like the two publications on outstanding primary and secondary schools, are gracefully written, and have a certain utility in drawing attention to what there is in the field of education to celebrate, but they are not especially searching, and they certainly offer something less than a blueprint; mostly, again, they reorganise the inspection criteria; all one is left with in the end is a somewhat unhelpful tautology: “this is outstanding, because that’s what outstanding means”. Increasingly, one needs to look to educational research, including practitioner inquiry, to find practical means of moving from “good to great” or even, to be more realistic of aspiring to be average. The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams: If I for a moment confine myself to the teams employed by the regional inspection provider for which I worked, I would say that the regulatory grip combined with the very careful, fear-induced QA processes of the Company, made them about as consistent as it was humanly possible to be. That is, for the reasons set out above, they were consistently not quite up to the job as envisaged in 2005. I now think that we were unrealistic. Too many inspectors have been too long out of schools for any purpose other than to inspect them. They—we—carry little conviction with young teachers. Too many are not fully up to date; they have little notion of the pressures on modern teachers. However, I think that the providers would themselves say that their main problems have been with HM Inspectors, who are not subject to the same disciplines as the regional inspection providers (RISPs). When David Bell was HMCI, he realized very clearly that HMI had, as a precondition to making the system work, to be subject to the same disciplines as RISPs. His successors have done little to follow that up. HMI’s performance has ranged from the outstanding to, in a small minority of cases, incompetent, but the general difficulty for the RISPs has been HMI’s lack of accountability: missed deadlines, whimsical judgements, indifferent writing were more common than one would have hoped. This again points to a lack of leadership in the department. The weight given to different factors in the inspection process: I take the widespread view that “safeguarding” has become too dominant, and has moved the inspection process too far along the spectrum towards auditing. I recently heard Ofsted referred to as “the schools regulator”. It was not intended to be that, and is not particularly well-adapted to do the job, which is a significant and , I believe, unintended extensiopn of its remit. On a more detailed point, Ofsted gives inadequate and insufficient attention to the management of the secondary curriculum. Virtually no attention is given to important matters such as the distribution of bonuses across the school. This is largely a historical accident: while the National Curriculum continued to be prescriptive in great detail, it could be argued that schools had few important curricular decisions to make. Now, they have many to make, with important implications for efficiency and equity. This needs to be a focus of inspection. Whether the inspection of all settings designed to support children’s learning and welfare is best undertaken by a single inspectorate: This is a very complex question, with arguments on both sides. I used to believe that the answer to this was an unequivocal “yes”, but I do not believe that, for example, the rigour of post-16 inspection has gained from the amalgamation of Ofsted and the ALI, and there has been some public dissatisfaction, centred on Haringey, with Ofsted’s inspection of childcare. Ofsted was most effective when its remit was restricted to small-scale, high quality operation with a specific focus. There is a great deal to be gained, nationally, from having an independent, small-scale inspectorate, focused on school standards.

Recommendations 1. Ofsted should be broken up and reconstituted as the Ofﬁce for Standards in Schools (or possibly schools and colleges). Its remit should be restricted to early years education in schools, compulsory education, post-16 education in schools, independent schools and local support for schools. 2. The obligation to inspect all schools should be removed. Ofsted should comment annually on the quality of education available to parents in each LA area, that is on such issues as: — educational standards and quality; — admissions arrangements and the availability of school places; — recruitment and retention of teachers; — the quality of the professional support available to schools; — the quality of professional support available to children and parents; — the quality of information provided to parents; — the choice of specialisms locally available; and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w13

— the extent to which local skills needs are analysed and met. The regular inspections should concentrate on: — outliers: schools which are weak, or outstanding, or improving rapidly; and — locally signiﬁcant themes, such as behaviour. 3. Ofsted should revert to its previous intention to draw on the wealth of information locally available: SIPs, LA inspectors, National Challenge advisers, SSAT advisers and others visit schools regularly to collect data and make professional judgements. Ofsted should draw upon this corpus of knowledge. 4. The number of inspectors should be much reduced. I do not believe it matters very much whether inspectors are employed centrally or by contractors. What matters is that they need to be very highly expert and therefore highly paid. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Landex Background to Landex. 1. Landex was formed in 2006 and now comprises 36 member colleges spanning higher and further education in England and Wales, plus six further associate members in the devolved countries within the United Kingdom. Members all have a specialism in land based subjects and are required to maintain a minimum level of resource and range of provision to provide an acceptable experience for learners and other users. It aims to enhance communication between members and with external agencies, and to improve quality across the membership to raise the credibility and reputation of the sector. It has a Board of Directors elected from the membership which oversees all Landex activities. 2. All members pay a subscription sufﬁcient to collectively employ a full time Director of Quality Improvement with the aim of utilising the good practice already present to raise quality across all members. Landex has established a Quality Improvement Strategy. This is based on seven guiding principles which highlight the use of the collective expertise of members to add rigour to validation of college quality, and to provide targeted improvement. While our membership, and the quality strategy, spans higher as well as further education, this response relates to English members with further education provision within Ofsted’s remit. 3. The response below relates mainly to the learning and skills sector, although it may be considered that some statements can also be applied more widely.

Question 1* What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted's remit) 4. Landex sees the purposes of inspection firmly as improvement towards high quality provision. All other possible purposes, such as setting or safeguarding standards, of providing a transparent picture of quality across providers, should be subservient to the over-riding one of improvement. Ultimately, if inspection succeeds in this prime purpose of improving the sector to be consistently good, then Ofsted and inspection may be considered worth having. If it does not succeed in this prime purpose, then no matter how much it succeeds in other goals, then Landex submits that it will have failed and continued existence cannot be justified. 5. Ofsted itself seems to agree with this assessment as its prime purpose, as its strap line ‘Raising standards, improving lives’, adopted when merged with three other inspectorates to result in its current huge scope, suggests. Indeed this strap line is printed on the front of all their reports and seems to Landex a useful reminder of their function. 6. Ofsted strategic plan (quoted in Ofsted 2009) states: “The heart of inspection remains the exercise of independent professional judgement by highly knowledgable inspectors” (Page six) With this in mind, we consider the plan to be wanting in that it fails to emphasise the centrality of improvement to their purpose and therefore process. While inspection reports do now contain recommendations for improvement, they are little more than reworded judgements and do not provide sufficient support for many providers to help them put into place the things needed to make a difference. 7. In some ways even subsidiary purposes of providing independent, standardised assessments of quality are compromised by inspection. Ofsted themselves have admitted this. For example (Ofsted 2005) “a college which offers a predominantly vocational curriculum risks being judged less successful” (page 19) This suggests any hope on the part of policy makers or funding bodies to use inspection results to inform them where good and poor quality resides, is at best, imperfect. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w14 Education Committee: Evidence

Question 2* The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 8. Landex was formed from its predecessor organisation in 2006 because of a concern that a number of land based colleges were not improving. Landex has formed its own quality improvement strategy and invested in support services with the long term vision of bringing about the improvement across our part of the sector which it would have been hoped the multi-million pound inspection investment would have stimulated over a decade and a half since external inspection began in earnest in 1993. However while some members have ﬂourished in this time and achieved high quality ratings, others have not, and have struggled under successive inspection regimes. Successive Chief Inspectors reports make the same point, noting many colleges judged no better than satisfactory, fail to improve from one inspection cycle to the next (Ofsted 2007, 2008, 2009). 9. This suggests that whatever brings about improvement, it may not be inspection. Rather, improvement seems to occur where there are staff with the right vision and skills within the institution. Inspection can sometimes help in these organisations by providing a stimulus or target or redirection. But it seems ineffective where the capacity within the organisation is not already able and working towards improvement. This is why Landex has set about a different course of action, trying to stimulate new ideas, new purpose and new inspiration among land based providers by encouraging collaboration and sharing as much as possible. Landex does incorporate an element of inspection in its work, but considers it ineffective on its own in bringing about improvement, a recognition we feel is supported by successive Ofsted Chief Inspectors reports.

Question 3* The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 10. Landex acknowledges the expertise of the best Ofsted inspectors, and the commitment of many individuals to sector improvement. Some thematic reports are excellent in identifying issues for colleges and others to address, for example, the insightful “How Colleges Improve” (Ofsted 2008) which contains most helpful insights into reasons behind success or not, of a college. The Good Practice database, while hosted by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service on their Excellence Gateway, uses material discovered by inspectors during inspection, and is seen within the sector as the more authoritative because of this. 11. However, we do not consider the organisation itself fit for the purpose we identify under question one above. Conversationally, some inspectors themselves admit they find the culture frustrating in relation to the service they feel they could provide to the sector. 12. The Ofsted website has virtually no search facility of benefit to professionals in the sector seeking to find material to support a quality improvement journey. Try looking for a grade one provider in land based provision (no search facility); or for a recently published care standards report with high quality residential provision (no search facility); or some outstanding practice in teaching and learning (no search facility). As an organisation, Ofsted has appeared unresponsive to concerns expressed and communication seems such that senior managers may not even aware of the frustration experienced by those who are trying to use the insights from inspection to effect improvement in their part of the sector. 13. Ofsted contracts, through Inspection Service Providers, with independent inspectors and consultants who are paid to go into providers, see the valuable ideas and practice, and proffer judgement on it. They then take these ideas away in their heads and are able to sell their services back to the sector as improvement services. Because providers feel the result of an Ofsted inspection will be for them to be “named and shamed” if their quality is not deemed good enough, it is not uncommon in England for a provider to spend a considerable sum engaging consultants who are “registered inspectors” in order to tell them the things these same consultants have gleaned from the sector in the first place during inspection. Thus the sector is being forced to pay for its own wisdom to be returned, and the nation pays twice for insight to be received by providers, once for Ofsted to come and judge it (and take it away) and again to buy it back from those who took it away…..! In the devolved nations we understand more use is made of staff within colleges and providers to undertake inspections on a peer review basis, and the culture is less “name and shame”, but rather, more “support and improve”. How can managers in the sector glean ideas for improvement when so few of them have opportunity to be involved in inspection and go into other providers and glean new ideas for themselves? How can it be best use of public money if providers feel they must spend again to receive the judgements that Ofsted are already being paid to deliver, when finance is so tight within the sector? Landex proposes this is an opportunity to review the culture of inspection to direct it more towards improvement. There is now a requirement for 50 per cent of part time inspectors to be “from the sector”. However the definition of this, at best, seems vague, and there is no attempt to ensure maximum coverage of providers or even inclusion of providers who most need to glean new insights. 14. The help lines are staffed by friendly people who we assume pass queries on, but which ultimately, often fail to produce adequate (or any) responses. Where Landex has been able to glean useful dialogue with Ofsted it has usually resulted from personal contact within the organisation (who have then often been most helpful), and not because the organisation itself is geared to respond effectively.

Question 4* The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 15. As already acknowledged, the best inspectors have undoubted experience and insight of great potential value to the sector. Most are at least competent though some do lack the insight required to really help those being inspected benefit. Some are too far removed from the practitioners and find it difficult to express cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w15

judgements in ways which the recipient will ﬁnd helpful in their search for improvement. Others are out of date or simply have insufﬁcient, recent, quality experience to be credible in the subjects they are inspecting. However the system also seems culpable in any lack of effectiveness of inspection teams. The sector having to pay to receive its own good practice back has already been outlined (under question 3). However, inspection teams are also constrained by the perception that judgement of standards is paramount rather than guidance towards improvement. Thus inspection practice provides something of a contradiction to Ofsted’s own strapline.

16. Good inspectors will sometimes have an informal “off the record” conversation with those they inspect where they can clearly see what must be done to improve. However, this is all too rare because of the constraints of the perceived remit.

Question 5* The weight given to different factors within the inspection process

17. Judgements made by Ofsted are still unnecessarily narrow, and hinge too much on a narrow interpretation of success. Landex acknowledges progress here, and the recent emphasis on “learner outcomes”, rather than “success rates” alone, is welcome. However inspection success is still heavily dependant on success rates and on grades achieved for main qualifications, with too little consideration of, and weight given to, other equally important parameters such as progression, employment or employability, citizenship or other personal skills. Ofsted allows its inspection to value that which can be easily measured, rather than attempting the harder but more important task, of attempting to measure what is valuable. A view of a range of inspection reports, and a comparison of column inches devoted to grades and percentages of success in main qualifications, with that given to wider aspects of success (if included at all), will evidence the point. Good grades are given where success rates are high. Where they are not, a good grade will not be forthcoming, no matter what, or how good, other factors are. Judgements by inspectors of college data compared with national benchmarks sometimes lack validity but are still made, and approach to data comparison is inconsistent. Landex considers that this simplistic approach to quality does not do justice to the complexity of the sector or to the clients it seeks to serve. Neither does it require highly paid inspectors to make such judgements, since finding out whether a number is higher or lower than another (for example, compared to the previous year, or to other providers), does not seem a high level skill worthy of an inspectors salary.

18. Learning and skills inspection reports are commendably concise and do contain summaries of significant issues which impact on quality. They seem to be written mainly for potential students and parents rather than for sector managers and other professionals in supporting improvement (in spite of this being the likely main audience for the reports). However, there is insufficient specific guidance to give practical insight and support for managers to effect improvement. This gap is seen especially in vocational subject reports, which sometimes now read much like cross college aspects already covered earlier in the same report.

19. Inspection is sometimes driven too much by protocol rather than individual provider improvement needs. Completion of specific inspection forms, moderation of specific paperwork, completion of the required text on the required aspects and completion of the required grades on the required form by the end of inspection, is deemed paramount. However additional investigation to arrive at a more insightful set of judgements to support provider improvement, risks relegation and is sometimes missed altogether. Colleges are often complex places, with complex provision aiming to serve a complex set of learners, employers and needs. Current inspection arrangements do not allow for sufficient understanding of these intricacies and so cannot provide enough support for improvement.

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

20. Landex does not have a view as to the scope of an inspectorate as such. However, we note that the current Ofsted seems less responsive to issues within the sector than previous inspectorates such as the FEFC inspectorate, or the Adult Learning Inspectorate, where there did seem, on balance, to be a clearer focus on understanding the needs of the sector and working together towards improvement. Landex simply requests that each component part of the current remit, such as that relating to learning and skills, is sufﬁciently independent from any central organisation, and structured to ensure it is sufﬁciently responsive to the sector it purports to serve. This could be achieved through a combination of the following considerations: — A “board” (with powers to make decisions as well as to advise) overseeing each part of Ofsteds work, with sector representatives dominant to ensure inspection remains responsive to sector needs. — Having only a minimum of full time inspectors on each team (to safeguard standards) and contracting, not independent consultants (as often at present) but with providers within the sector, for the bulk of each and every inspection team. Instead of providers having to pay again to buy insight back which originated from their sector, pay providers to be part of inspection teams and ensure they glean these improvement insights directly. Landex believes this would, in the long term, both save money and provide more improvement for the extensive cost and effort inspection entails. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w16 Education Committee: Evidence

— Reforming Ofsted as it currently exists (if it is considered too difﬁcult to adjust effectively to improvement as its prime purpose, in its current form), and setting up some smaller organisation(s) to safeguard improvement and standards within learning and skills. If this option is taken, consideration might be given to the standards and quality improvement work already being undertaken elsewhere (such as that within Landex), either to build on this approach or to avoid duplication. — Closer linkage between Ofsted managers and inspectors, and providers and provider representative organisations, to provide a regular channel for communication and for sharing concern and best practice, and if need be, redirection of Ofsted strategy towards improvement as its prime purpose.

Question 7* The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 21. Within the learning and skills sector, of course, providers are already autonomous bodies. Many are completely within the private sector. There would seem an example here, therefore, of how inspection might work in increasingly autonomous schools. However, Landex urges the committee not to see the current state of inspection within learning and skills as the example for others to follow, but rather to consider the evidence and views expressed above in the hope of a more “ﬁt for purpose” organisation and inspection/improvement process to emerge. September 2010

References and Bibliography (all Ofsted reports accessed from www.ofsted.gov.uk). Ofsted, 2005 FE matters. Ofsted, London, November 2005. Ofsted, 2007 The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Childrens’ Services and Skills, 2006–07. Page 40 states the proportion of colleges failing to improve beyond “satisfactory”. Ofsted, 2007. Strategic Plan 2007–2010. Ofsted, London, October 2007. Ofsted, 2008 The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Childrens’ Services and Skills, 2007–08. Page 37 states the proportion of colleges failing to improve beyond “satisfactory”. Ofsted, 2008. How Colleges improve. Ofsted, London, September 2008. Ofsted, 2009 The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Childrens’ Services and Skills, 2008–09. Page 43 states the proportion of colleges failing to improve beyond “satisfactory”. Ofsted (2009) “Raising standards, improving lives”, Ofsted September 2009, page 6.

Memorandum submitted by DEA About DEA DEA is an education charity that promotes global learning. We work to ensure that people in the UK learn about global issues such as poverty and climate change and develop an open-minded, global outlook. DEA deﬁnes global learning as education that puts learning in a global context, fostering: — critical and creative thinking; — self-awareness and open-mindedness towards difference; — understanding of global issues and power relationships; and — optimism and action for a better world. DEA is a membership body, with over 150 organisational members including subject associations, universities, local authorities and many development and environment NGOs in the UK.

Analysis andRecommendations 1. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 1.1 In some cases, Ofsted reports have highlighted the progress of schools in developing a global dimension and opportunities for young people to learn about sustainable development. In these cases such opportunities have been seen as important elements of education and as having a positive impact on young people. In this submission we suggest that Ofsted reports more clearly and fully on the progress of schools in these areas, more consistently recognising the value of these opportunities in relation to pupil outcomes. 1.2 A report speciﬁcally focusing on sustainability in schools, Education for sustainable development,2 highlighted a relationship with student engagement and behaviour. The report states that “learning about 2 Ofsted, 2009, Education for sustainable development, Manchester:Ofsted. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w17

sustainability captures the interest of children and young people because they can see its relevance to their own lives.” As a result, “A common characteristic of the lessons observed, across the full range of National Curriculum subjects seen during the survey, was the high level of engagement of the pupils in work they perceived as relevant to their lives and future well-being”. Further, “some school leaders identified links between particular pupils’ involvement in sustainable activities and improvement in their attitudes and behaviour generally.” 1.3 The report also identified a relationship between the development of education for sustainable development and an improvement in teaching and learning: “Most of the headteachers found that, over the course of the survey, education for sustainability had been an important factor in improving teaching and learning more generally. This was confirmed through lesson observations in a range of subjects across the sample of schools visited”. 1.4 An impact on of education for sustainable development on young people’s behaviours for sustainability outside of school was also identified: “The pupils who were committed to sustainability in school tended to lead sustainable lives at home and there was increasing evidence of this leading to positive changes in their families’ views and behaviour. The commitment, enthusiasm and initiative of young people were also a spur to members of the wider community to re-examine their own lifestyles”. 1.5 In terms of management of the school campus, those schools committed to sustainability demonstrated “how greater awareness of the need for sustainability can lead to reduced financial costs and better management of resources and estate”. 1.6 These findings echo survey research carried out by Ipsos MORI which found that those who have learnt about the wider world at school are more likely than average to believe that what they do in their daily lives can affect those in other countries and that people like them have the ability to make a difference (Ipsos MORI, 20083). Similar research amongst teachers found that 80% of teachers agree that “thinking about how teaching contributes to making the world a better place motivates me to stay in teaching” (Ipsos MORI, 20094) 1.7 In an earlier Ofsted report, Geography in schools: changing practice,5 the global dimension is identified as being “underdeveloped in the majority of schools surveyed. Frequently, insufficient connections are made between the wider curriculum and the geography curriculum to reinforce pupils’ understanding of issues such as global citizenship, diversity, human rights and sustainable development”. 1.8 Given the influence that the focus and reporting of inspections can have on the ways in which schools develop, and the positive impact that learning about the wider world can have, approaches taken by schools to sustainable development and the global dimension should be highlighted within Ofsted reports. 1.9 Within the evaluation schedule for individual school inspections, inspectors should be encouraged to highlight the school’s development of education for sustainable development and the global dimension where these impact on student outcomes and the effectiveness of provision. Inspectors should also recognise the value of such approaches where they are reported by schools through the Self Evaluation Form. 1.10 To enable them to carry out this role effectively, and to ensure that sustainability and the global dimension are valued through inspection reports, inspectors must receive adequate training on how to evaluate a school’s progress in this area. 1.11 DEA would also welcome further thematic reports on education for sustainable development and the global dimension within schools. These reports would signal to schools the value of critical and creative learning about the wider world, and provide vital insights into the way in which opportunities for this kind of learning are developing in schools. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Shirley Finch I have been a childminder for 10 years and was previously a play scheme play worker and a part-time preschool assistant so I have been through quite a few nerve racking Ofsted inspections, saying that though I do feel that they are a good idea. Talking from a childminder’s perspective they are good for keeping me on my toes with up to date paperwork and training and keeping all policies checked regularly as phone numbers rules etc. change a lot. It’s a good way of being ranked and recognised for all your hard work as there is satisfactory good and outstanding which by the way I got on my last inspection. This grading when seen on the website or on my advertising puts me in better demand for work and gives me many more phone calls/ enquires I even now have a waiting list and deposit scheme in practice, it also helps you be known by other parents, fellow childcare providers and childminders who lack in certain areas—they turn to you for advice. 3 Ipsos MORI, 2008, Young People’s Experiences of Global Learning: An Ipsos MORI Research Study on behalf of DEA. Available at: www.dea.org.uk/research. 4 Ipsos MORI, 2009, Teachers’ Attitudes to Global Learning: An Ipsos MORI Research Study on behalf of DEA. Available at: www.dea.org.uk/research. 5 Ofsted, 2008, “Geography in schools: changing practice”, Manchester:Ofsted. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w18 Education Committee: Evidence

friendship and knowledge in a respectful way. Parents also recognise that you take your job seriously and are not just babysitters who sit in front of the TV. As far as inspections go I do find that three years is ok and as long as you do a SEF form at least every two years that’s sufficient. I find that the inspection is a difficult time to talk to the inspector as often they turn up when I have two or three school runs to do and are asking me questions and to show them things when the children are needing my attention so I don’t always understand or answer correctly. A tick list of what they would like to see would be handy a month before inspections, or for the inspection to be split one hour with children, one hour in early evening or a daytime arranged for paperwork and questions. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by CASCAiD In response to the recent call for evidence to contribute towards the Education Committee inquiry into the Role and Performance of Ofsted, CASCAiD Ltd is pleased to offer the following observations into the inspection process in relation to careers education, information, advice and guidance provision in schools.

About CASCAiD CASCAiD is the UK’s leading provider of careers information and guidance solutions. Part of Loughborough University, CASCAiD has over 40 years experience of supporting the delivery of careers education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) to young people. We work in over 75% of secondary schools in the UK.

TheImportance of CEIAG The most important role of a school is to prepare a young person for adulthood by providing them with the skills, knowledge and ability to succeed in life and secure their economic wellbeing. In order for a young person to understand the relevance and importance of what they are learning throughout their school life, there is a need to provide them with greater links between their education and their future choices. Where a young person can see the impact that achievement in different learning themes has on their future opportunities, they raise their aspirations and ultimately they achieve more. Therefore CEIAG has a crucial role to play in every young person’s learning journey. However in our experience this isn’t reﬂected in many schools’ practice enough and CEIAG is given a low priority. Greater focus by Ofsted on the quality and effectiveness of CEIAG provision in schools is necessary in order to address this.

CEIAGProvision We have seen vast differences in the quality and extent of CEIAG provision in schools. Where it works well, schools are working in partnership with external service providers (including local authority and Connexions) to ensure that provision is impartial and in the young person’s best interests. However, too often Senior Leadership Teams (SLT) in schools do not see how vital their role in CEIAG delivery is and this translates into a lack of support for delivery which materialises as insufﬁcient time and resources for delivery. A member of SLT should be nominated as being responsible for CEIAG and they should champion its integration throughout the school’s teaching, ensuring that it is supported throughout the institution.

TheRole ofInspection Greater focus must be placed on CEIAG during inspections. In order for SLTs to fully embrace CEIAG they need to understand that insufficient and inappropriate provision will have an impact on the outcome of an inspection. Relatively few inspection reports refer to CEIAG, which considering the vital role that it plays in a young person’s future, is concerning. Inspections should consider the following factors in relation to CEIAG and make reference to them within inspection reports: — Impartiality of provision—how well provision reflects the best interests of the young person. — Integration within the curriculum—how well provision is linked to subjects to enable students to recognise the links between what they are learning and how it will benefit them in the future. — Impact of provision—how well provision raises aspirations and motivates students to engage with and achieve in different subjects. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w19

InspectionMethodology The role of Ofsted inspections is broad; however CEIAG should be given greater focus as it has cross curricular implications and a direct impact upon achievement levels. As an alternative to more inspection of CEIAG we would recommend the introduction of a mandatory quality award which could then be referenced in inspection reports. There are currently a number of voluntary quality awards schemes, such as Career Mark. If made compulsory, Ofsted’s role would be one of reporting on the progress individual schools are making towards accreditation or re-accreditation. This would clearly ensure that the schools’ CEIAG provision is being inspected against a quality framework, by an inspector who is experienced in CEIAG. It would also ensure that quality is comparable against other institutions. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Emeritus Professor Malyn Newitt This evidence has its origin in a lengthy (and unsatisfactory) correspondence I have had with OFSTED following the inspection, and follow-up inspection, of Romsey Abbey School where two of my grandchildren were being educated. As a result of the inspection (No 338805 carried out in November 2009) the School was rated “Inadequate” in both Overall Effectiveness and Capacity for Sustained Improvement. As this judgment ran directly counter to my family’s experience of the School and to the school’s demonstrable excellence in one subject (Music), I decided to look closely at the report. As a result a number of disturbing aspects came to light. I copy here the words of the complaint I made to OFSTED From the start the report is full of assertions and judgments for which there is no supporting evidence. In higher education every statement in a report has to be substantiated from evidence. Indeed many of the assertions in this report are contradicted by the information that the inspectors themselves provide. For example, the adoption of healthy lifestyles was only awarded a 3 although 94 per cent of parents agreed that the school helped children adopt a healthy lifestyle. Then, it is the “view of almost all pupils and parents” that the school is “a calm and safe environment”, yet this element is only awarded a 3. There are many other such discrepancies between the evidence and the judgments, which are not explained. The language of the report is often ill chosen. Frequently it says that “many parents…” think something when the evidence is that only a small minority do. A responsibly drafted report would say “A few parents…” or simply “Some parents…”. Equally serious are the omissions, which are either deliberate (and reprehensible) or result from an inadequate inspection. It is well known that Music at the Abbey School is outstandingly successful, but the sole mention of music in the report is to say that “parents praise the opportunities for music”. But it is the Music teaching itself which is outstanding and this receives no mention at all. There are also procedural shortcomings. Apparently the inspectors “spoke informally with other pupils and with parents”. This is quite improper. An inspection should be rigorous in its procedures and should not allow “informal” sources to influence its findings. Only 9 lessons were observed over six year groups but this is quite insufficient for any judgment about teaching quality to be made. Quality assurance in higher education has long ago understood the pointlessness of observing a single class as a basis for a judgment on teaching. There is a lot more that could be said but on the inspectors own figures 96% of parents say their children enjoy the school, 84% think their child is making good progress and 91% are “happy with my child’s experience at this school”. Meanwhile the head of Romsey secondary school has said (Romsey Advertiser 18 December) that Abbey pupils “present a very favourable picture”. These complaints were dealt with by the OFSTED complaints procedures but in a wholly defensive way. There was no attempt to address my concerns that there were fundamental problems with the Inspection Report and the inspection itself. Following the report the head teacher went on leave and subsequently resigned. A number of other staff left and went to other posts. When the follow-up inspection took place the school was still found to be Inadequate— in other words the original report had not enabled the School to improve (in the eyes of OFSTED). As a result of this Inspection Report and the correspondence I have had with OFSTED, I respectfully make the following points to the Select Committee.

1. InspectionProceduresNeed to beReconsidered 1(a) The OFSTED inspection gave the impression that the Inspectors had formed a judgment and then looked for evidence to support it. When the evidence did not support their judgment, they simply ignored this evidence. This may or may not have been the case, but this is certainly the impression that they gave. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w20 Education Committee: Evidence

1(b) Informal meetings with pupils and selected parents should be discontinued and replaced by formal procedures, which are open and transparent. It is quite wrong to generalize about what ‘parents’ think (as the follow up report does) on the basis of these selective interviews with unnamed individuals. 1(c) Classroom observations should either be discontinued or increased in number so that their outcomes can be statistically valid. As teachers were only observed on a single occasion, I pointed out to OFSTED that “In no branch of any science is a sample of one a basis on which to form any conclusion”.

2. ReportingProceduresNeed to beModiﬁed 2(a) Conclusions reached should be supported by, and should be consistent with, the data presented in the report 2(b) Evidence for unfavourable judgments should be clear and explicit 2(c) There should be great care that the wording is not misleading (no more use of ‘many’ where ‘few’ would be more accurate etc.) 2(d) Any excellent aspect of the School should be explicitly mentioned

3. OverallJudgments should beDiscontinued 3(a) Although it is reasonable to make judgments (with evidence) on speciﬁc aspects of a School, the overall judgments, that summarise the inspection in one word, can be both misleading and highly damaging. In the case of Romsey Abbey School at least one aspect of the education is known to be outstanding. The School has a very high reputation for its Music in the south Hampshire region and consistently outperforms all other Schools in the regional music festivals. It is, therefore, quite unfair for this excellence to be submerged in an overall judgment of ‘Inadequate’. 3(b) The same applies to individual teachers. In an overall judgment there is no discrimination between those who are excellent and those who are not. All are tarred with the same brush, which seriously undermines morale. 3c Overall judgments are extremely damaging to morale. Far from helping a School to improve, such a report drives away good staff, persuades some parents to remove their children and damages irretrievably the reputation of the School in the eyes of those who will never read the report in detail.

4. How anInspectionReport can help a School 4(a) Instead of bald statements about ‘inadequacy’, the report should be speciﬁc about what, in the eyes of the inspectors, can be done to improve aspects of the education, with due consideration to resources available, the social composition of the intake of pupils etc. 4(b) Due emphasis should be given to good aspects of the education and to excellence wherever it is found 4(c) Due credit should be given to the individual ethos of a School and there should be less emphasis on ‘ticking boxes’ and on conformity

5. Consistency and‘box ticking’ 5(a) Another grandchild of mine attended a local nursery school. This nursery was universally considered excellent by the parents, there was a long waiting list, the children enjoyed their experience there and my grand-daughter hugely benefited from attending it. 5(b) Three years ago an OFSTED inspection found it to be ‘Excellent. The nursery continues to be run by the same people and in the same way. However, this year another OFSTED team decided it was ‘Inadequate’. As a result it clearly risks being closed down. This inconsistency by OFSTED is very serious and it seems quite outrageous that inspectors should invade a facility that is so highly regarded by the local community and threaten it with closure. This is little short of bureaucratic tyranny. 5(c) One possible explanation for this reversal of OFSTED’s judgment is that, since the first inspection, all sorts of additional requirements have been introduced and that there are a number of ‘boxes’ that cannot be satisfactorily ticked. Again (as in section 4 above) OFSTED could be helpful by drawing attention to things that might be improved rather than issuing a public and humiliating condemnation of the work of the nursery and its staff. 5(d) Nurseries are very diverse in character and reflect the needs and values of local communities in a very intimate way. Central inspection of these facilities is quite inappropriate and should be a task undertaken by Local Education Authorities, possibly in conjunction with Social Services departments September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w21

Memorandum submitted by National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) Executive Summary In the submission NASS and its member schools raise concerns about the consistency of inspectors carrying out education and care inspections in our sector. We note the crucial role that Ofsted inspections play in our sector in acting as a quality mark for placing Local Authorities. NASS draws the attention of the Committee to the difﬁculties experienced by those offering education and care provision in respect of “joint” inspections. However, NASS urges the Government not to make this more difﬁcult for providers by creating a separate care regulator.

Background to NASS The National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) is a membership organisation catering for approximately 6000 very vulnerable children and young people. It provides information, support and training to its members in order to beneﬁt and advance the education of children and young people with SEN. NASS is delighted to contribute to this inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. NASS is the only national organisation representing special schools in the voluntary and private sectors. NASS works in partnership with key national and regional organisations and acts as the voice for Non Maintained and Independent Special Schools (NMISS). NASS currently represents almost 190 schools across England and Wales. All are currently inspected by Ofsted, either as Non-maintained special schools, under the same framework as local authority special schools, or as Independent Schools under S162a of the 2002 Education Act. Additionally, Ofsted also inspects the care provision of schools with residential facilities. Schools providing fewer than 295 days residential care a year are registered and inspected as Residential Special Schools where as those offering more than 295 days a year are registered and inspected as Children’s Homes. This gives our sector a wealth of experience of Ofsted and its inspection regimes.

General Points about Ofsted NASS members’ impression of Ofsted performance in carrying out its work is very mixed. Lack of consistency within and between the range of inspection frameworks can cause problems for schools and NASS members highlight this as their greatest concern. Within education inspection, there are differences in the knowledge and experience of inspectors, speciﬁcally in relation to their knowledge of SEN. The core group of SEN trained HMIs within Ofsted is valued highly but they are rarely used for inspections within the Non- Maintained sector, where registered inspectors are the norm. The transfer of care inspections from CSCI to Ofsted was traumatic for many schools. We lost strong positive relationships with care inspectors that had, in some cases, been developed over many years. The loss of the “advice and guidance” function was also acutely felt in our sector. However, we believe that Ofsted has worked hard over the past couple of years to address concerns and we have seen a notable improvement in care inspection practice. A change of regulator is always hugely disruptive to providers and NASS is keen that the Government does not consider separating out care and education inspections without a major assessment of how this will impact on providers. NASS would argue that the current economic climate is already presenting providers with considerable challenge and that any change of inspection body would be particularly unwelcome.

Inspection What should the purpose be of Ofsted inspections? Inspections should be against clear regulatory frameworks but the process of inspection should support and challenge schools to achieve and sustain excellent outcomes for children and young people. NASS members have missed the additional advice and guidance function of inspection, which used to be present in CSCI care inspections.

What is the impact of the inspection process? NASS member schools rely on placements being made by Local Authorities (LAs). LAs clearly only want to purchase placements from good and outstanding schools and the key means of judging this are Ofsted reports. Consequently, inspections are crucial to the ongoing business of our sector. A good report can sustain admissions whilst a poor report may lead to LAs withdrawing pupils from the school. Where there are serious concerns about the safety or standards at a school this is appropriate. However, in the era of “limiting judgements”, particularly in relation to safeguarding, procedural issues, such as a central register of CRB checks being not quite in the required format, can result in a school being labelled “unsatisfactory” and struggling to admit children. In a general context of inconsistency of inspections, this is of great concern to NASS and its member schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w22 Education Committee: Evidence

What is the impression of the consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process?

NASS members are concerned that there is inconsistency in how inspectors inspect our sector across education and care. The vast majority of our schools receive inspections of both education and care and there are particular concerns about how joint inspections work in theory and practice.

A number of areas where practice is felt to be particularly inconsistent were raised by a number of members: — Restriction of liberty versus keeping children safe — Grading of safeguarding practice—particularly in respect of documentation — Residential arrangements—particularly an issue where schools are additionally registered as Children’s Homes — Medication policy and practice — Agreement between education and care inspection teams during joint inspections

The ﬁnal point is a major concern to NASS. At their best, joint inspections allow for a holistic inspection of provision which saves the school time and effort and allows the differing skills and experiences of inspectors to be combined to best advantage. In practice this rarely happens. A number of schools have reported stories of care and education inspection teams refusing to share rooms, barely speaking to each other and disagreeing with each other’s judgements. In one school, the education provision was judged “outstanding” whilst the care was rated as “inadequate” on the basis of a single issue which caused great dispute between the education and care inspector. Lack of clarity about what the service’s overall grade should be left the school with months of dispute to re-secure its overall “outstanding” grading.

Our schools cater for children with complex and low incidence special needs and disabilities. Our members value working with inspectors with in-depth, specialist knowledge of SEN. Conversely, working with inexperienced, registered inspectors who sometimes appear to operate on a “tick box” approach, causes great frustration.

What weight should be given to different factors within the inspection process?

All areas of a child’s development and wellbeing are important and NASS would like to see attention being given to more than just educational attainment. This is particularly important for children with complex special needs and disabilities where a holistic view of the child is needed in order to make judgements of progress and achievement. Safeguarding is a vital part of a school’s role and NASS believes that practice should be considered during inspection. However, we would like to see the focus move away from inspection of the minutiae of documentation and policies to a focus on the actual practice in schools which keeps children safe.

Accountability

Whether inspection of all organizations, setting and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate

Despite initial difficulties with Ofsted assuming responsibilities for care inspections, NASS would be very wary of creating another new regulator for care inspection. Ofsted has worked hard to address concerns about care inspection process and practice and our experience is that this is consistently improving month on month. Change is very disruptive and costly for providers and now would be a very difficult time for schools to undertake a major change. Where providers have both education and care provision, working under a single inspectorate should, in theory, make life easier and allow for more joined up inspections. As we have reported, practice does not quite match this yet but there were greater difficulties when the two areas were inspected separately.

Whilst NASS is not keen to see another inspectorate created, we do think that Ofsted could draw on some of the positive advice and guidance functions of the former CSCI.

What should the role be of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy?

NASS member schools already operate with considerable autonomy. When Ofsted has concerns about a school the route back to the registering body—The Department for Education—is clear as is the range of actions that the Department might take. We see no reason why this approach could not be used with Academies and Free Schools. However, an ongoing issue for non Local Authority maintained schools where concerns are identiﬁed is access to appropriate support and guidance. Whilst LAs provide support to maintained schools with identiﬁed weaknesses, there is no similar mechanism or funding for schools outside of LA control. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w23

Conclusion NASS has identiﬁed concerns about consistency across a number of key areas and, in particular, in joint care and education inspections. NASS believes that there is not a need to create a separate inspection body for care and welfare and that this will be unhelpful and disruptive to providers. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Christopher Thomson, Principal, Brighton Hove & Sussex Sixth Form College 1. I’d assume that the Government has a duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care to ensure the education system (to confine my response just to that strand of Ofsted’s work) delivers the content it’s supposed to, to the standard it ought to. 2. The enquiry should go back to fundamental first principles and ask not “what tweaking is needed in order to adjust what’s already under way?” but “If we were starting from scratch, what would we design?” 3. The reasons for a fundamental review are (i) the economic crisis, (ii) the bureaucracy-busting agenda and (iii) the development over the last decade of reliable performance measures (in some areas of Ofsted’s work) 4. The enquiry should ensure that: (i) nothing is done more expensively by Ofsted that could be done adequately and cheaper by some other means and/or agency; (ii) Ofsted’s entire manner of working is consonant with the present hard times, ie. the leanest possible regime; (iii) There is no duplication (for example overlap between the roles of LEA, Ofsted and FFE) 5. The enquiry should be prepared to examine Ofsted’s work in discrete strands—for example separating the question of what its role should be in respect of schools from what its role should be in respect of Sixth Form Colleges. This will increase the likelihood of developing conclusions which are (i) more economical and (ii) fitter (than otherwise) for purpose. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Daycare Trust 1. Summary 1.1 Daycare Trust is the national childcare charity, campaigning for high quality, accessible, affordable childcare for all and raising the voices of children, parents and carers. We undertake research, campaign on childcare issues, work with providers in different types of early years’ settings, as well as providing information for parents and carers. Our surveys of parents and providers give a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of issues facing these groups and we have incorporated this research into our evidence. 1.2 Many independent studies show that young children who spent time in nurseries and in other high quality early years settings have better social and learning outcomes at school and in later life—but only if these settings provide a good quality service. Ofsted inspections, against the criteria outlined in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), are an essential part of quality control. However, Changes in staff and/or management can easily change the quality (and safety) of early years settings, thus inspections must continue to be made regularly. Daycare Trust recommends at least a two year inspection cycle for settings experiencing high staff turnover. 1.3 To ensure that all children are cared for in a safe and stimulating environment, Daycare Trust recommends that compliance with the Childcare Register be made compulsory for nannies and those providing childcare or organising activities for older children. 1.4 Daycare Trust strongly recommends that the inspection of all early years provision remain the responsibility of one inspectorate. Parental awareness of early years inspection reports and their use of them is likely to be damaged if Ofsted’s inspection role is broken up and allocated to other organisations. 1.5 Daycare Trust believes that there must be more efforts made to include parents and children in the inspection process to a greater extent than at present. Daycare Trust recommends that Ofsted review the format of its reports, with the aim of providing more accessible and more useful information for parents of young children. Daycare Trust also recommends that Ofsted considers highlighting good practice in reports. This would contribute to greater parental understanding of quality.

2. Evidence from Daycare Trust’sWork withParents,Carers andProviders 2.1 Daycare Trust works closely with parents and carers. There is limited evidence on the extent to which parents use Ofsted reports when choosing an early years setting. Research carried out by Daycare Trust for the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Education Committee: Evidence

London Early Years Foundation (a social enterprise with 20 nurseries across London) suggested that 50.2% of the sample of parents had consulted Ofsted reports, although most parents also used other sources of information before making a judgement. In contrast, Daycare Trust research on parents understandings of “quality” early years provision showed very low usage of Ofsted reports. In one focus groups with parents, only one parent had used Ofsted reports to select childcare. Many more had used Ofsted reports to select schools for older children. One parent who spoke English, but as a second language, found it difficult to understand Ofsted reports. Our research also showed that some parents who consulted Ofsted reports felt that some of the information in them is superficial and did not help them choose childcare. 2.2 As awareness of Ofsted’s role and use of their reports is lower for parents choosing an early years setting than it is for schools, a situation which could be improved with greater promotion of Ofsted’s role and better quality reports. Daycare Trust recommends that Ofsted review the format of its reports, with the aim of providing more accessible and more useful information for parents of young children. 2.3 Daycare Trust also works with early years’ providers to improve the quality, availability and range of early childhood education and care, and respond to issues raised by early years providers. We run the London Childcare Providers Network, a project funded by London Councils. Our 2010 London Childcare Providers Survey indicated that concerns about Ofsted inspections were the most important issue facing the early years’ sector in London, with 42.4% of our sample of providers citing this as a “top five” concern. When these results were broken down by sector, however, it was only among childminders and private and voluntary sector day nurseries that concern about Ofsted inspections featured a “top five” issue. Moreover, between 2009 and 2010 there was a 33% fall the fall in the proportion of London early years providers who believed that Ofsted inspections was a “top five” concern for them6. This suggests that worries about Ofsted fall as providers gain familiarity with the inspection process. We believe that there is little evidence to show that childminders are leaving the profession as a consequence of the Ofsted inspection processs. However, very major changes to the Ofsted inspection process in the immediate future have the potential to damage workforce morale. 2.4 Early years provider srely on obtaining hard copies of the EYFS and its support materials, for staff training, planning and to prepare for inspections. At present early years providers are unable to obtain hard copies of the EYFS, even though its content will not change until 2012. This is unacceptable .

3. Purposes ofInspection 3.1 Daycare Trust believes that the purposes of inspections of early years’ settings are three-fold: — To ensure that young children receive high quality and safe early childhood education and care, by inspecting against the criteria outlined in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) guidance. — To drive up standards — To ensure that early years settings are accountable to parents and to provide information to enable them to choose the most appropriate setting for them. 3.2 While we feel that the Ofsted inspection process (and EYFS) contribute to children’s welfare and learning and has driven up standards, we feel that Ofsted inspections have had quite a limited role in helping parents choose settings and ensuring greater accountability to parents. This is because of a relatively low awareness among parents of Ofsted’s early years role . The format and sometimes superﬁcial content of the reports does not add to accountability. These issues could be remedied by greater publicity about Ofsted’s early years role, and by reviewing the inspection process, format and content of Ofsted reports.

4. TheImpact of theInspectionProcess onEarlyChildhoodEducation andCare 4.1 Daycare Trust believes that both the introduction of EYFS and the Ofsted inspection of early years’ settings against the EYFS criteria have had a major effect in driving up quality. In particular, bringing child minders into a uniﬁed inspection process has had a major impact on improving the quality of the learning environment for children cared for by childminders. Daycare Trust’s 2010 London Childcare Providers’ Survey, showed that 70% of respondents (who included child minders) believed that the EYFS and Ofsted inspections had a positive impact on the quality of childcare. 4.2 While Ofsted inspection of early years’ settings against the EYFS criteria has had a positive impact on standards, Daycare Trust is concerned that the registration of nannies (on the Childcare Register) is voluntary, as is the registration of those providing after school and holiday care to children over eight years old, leading to a two tier system for child protection and welfare. We recommend that compliance with the Childcare Register be made compulsory for nannies and those providing childcare or organising activities for older children.

5. ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarryingOut itsWork 5.1 While Daycare Trust believes that the Ofsted inspection process has had a major impact on the quality of early childhood education and care process, we feel that the early childhood education and care sector is 6 Daycare Trust (2010) London Childcare Providers Survey, London: Daycare Trust Ibid (2009) London Childcare Providers Survey, London: Daycare Trust. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w25

not afforded sufficient importance and priority within Ofsted. It has taken until 2010 to introduce a common inspection framework for children’s centres—an unacceptably long delay. 5.2 Ofsted has produced many influential research reports drawing from its own primary research, as well as inspection evidence. These reports have reached a wide audience in schools, because of the weight given to a report authored by Ofsted. As a consequence, many of these reports have had a positive impact on educational standards and child welfare. It is rather disappointing that Ofsted has only published five research reports that relate to early childhood education and care since January 2008. 5.3 We do not presently have information about the numbers of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) who have a background in early years education and have requested this information from Ofsted. Clearly, it is important that there is sufficient expertise on early childhood education and care among HMI and more broadly in Ofsted. 5.4 We recommend Ofsted considers: — Expanding Ofsted’s non-executive board to include an expert on early childhood education and care. — Reviewing the composition of HMI from the perspective of early childhood education and care — Working with experts within the early childhood education and care sector to consider research priorities and other strategies to drive up quality in early childhood education and care. 5.5 At present Government is undertaking a review of the EYFS, led by Dame Claire Tickell. It is planned that a revised EYFS be implemented in 2012. It is highly likely that changes in the revised EYFS will affect the Ofsted inspection framework. It is essential that change to the early years inspection framework be communicated early to practitioners and that printed materials are ready. Long delays in issuing inspection frameworks and printed materials are unacceptable.

6. Inspection andRegistrationRegulations 6.1 All those delivering early years provision as defined by the Childcare Act 2006 must register with Ofsted’s Early Years Register. Ofsted inspections are carried out every three years for providers on the Early Years Register, in addition to a registration visit when a provider first applies to be on the Register. Daycare Trust is concerned that a three year cycle may not highlight poor or dangerous practice in early years’ settings, as a consequence of high staff turnover in the sector. Private and voluntary sector day nurseries experience particularly high staff turnover. Changes in staff and/or management can easily change the environment in early years settings, thus inspections must continue to be made regularly. Daycare Trust recommends at least a two year inspection cycle for settings experiencing high staff turnover. Ofsted could consider setting a staff turnover threshold and when this is exceeded, a more frequently inspection regime be out in place. 6.2 Daycare Trust is concerned that that Ofsted does not have the capacity to follow up on recommendations made until the next inspection, unless a provider is judged inadequate and therefore has a follow-up visit. A further limitation of Ofsted inspections is that they only take a snapshot of provision on the day of inspection; they are almost immediately out of date. Thus if a provider is judged satisfactory but takes immediate action to improve their provision and put into place any recommendations made by Ofsted and raises their standards to “good”, this will not be reflected in publicly available information for another three years, or longer if it is on the Childcare Register. We note that local authorities can make their own judgments about early years provision between Ofsted inspections, but information from local authority inspections is not readily accessible by parents. 6.3 While private day nurseries are inspected by Ofsted, early years provision within independent schools is the now responsibility of the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) which reports to and is monitored by Ofsted. Daycare Trust has no concerns about the ISI’s role in inspecting early years provision in independent schools. 6.4 Ofsted also operates the Childcare Register for those providing childcare for children over the age of five. For childcare providers for children aged five and over, there is limited inspection (only a Criminal Records Bureau check and checks on 10% of providers each year), unless a complaint is made against the provider. Ofsted registration (on the Childcare Register) is compulsory for children aged between five and eight years but voluntary for: — those providing care for children aged over eight; — nannies providing care in children’s own homes; — those providing short term care, for example, crèches in supermarkets; and — those providing activity based sessions, for example sports coaching. 6.5 Daycare Trust’s helpline has occasionally received calls from parents whose children have been mistreated or neglected by nannies. We are concerned that compliance with the Childcare Register is voluntary for nannies and some other providers of childcare, as this gives rise to a two tier system for child protection and welfare. We recommend that compliance with the Childcare Register be made compulsory for nannies and those providing childcare or organising activities for older children. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Education Committee: Evidence

7. InspectionMethodology

7.1 Ofsted sets a broad framework for its inspections. These frameworks outline the areas and issues that need to be inspected. Based on this broad framework, inspectors or organizations carrying out inspections draw up their own schedule for an actual inspection. A number of academics and commentators, including Sir Mike Tomlinson, have criticised Ofsted’s inspection framework methodology as being too rigid, too reliant on collecting paper work and thus failing to highlight important issues. “Tick box approach” is an epithet used in some popular critiques of Ofsted. Daycare Trust believe that the fault for this does not lie solely with Ofsted’s inspection frameworks, rather the interpretation of them by inspectors and organisations. It is important that Ofsted uses a standardised methodology and approach to grading quality. We would, however, like to see greater weight given to observations and also inspectors given the opportunity to make observations outside the formal structure of the inspection framework and that importance given to these observations in drafting the ﬁnal report. If this was done, we believe that the quality of information in Ofsted reports would improve. This would enable parents to make a more informed choice about early childhood and education and care for their children.

7.2 Daycare Trust believes that there must be more efforts made to include parents and children in the inspection process to a greater extent than at present. Ofsted inspectors must actively approach parents themselves, rather than leave it to providers to ﬁlter contact. Processes that encourage parents and children’s views must be developed and encouraged.

7.3 Ofsted measures provision against EYFS minimum standards. While inspection reports can highlight good practice but the judgments are about whether providers meet minimum standards. Daycare Trust recommends that Ofsted considers highlighting good practice in reports. This would contribute to greater parental understanding of quality.

7.4 There are some differences in the inspection processes for different early years’ settings. Nursery and reception provision in primary schools requires a minimum notice of inspection of two days. There is no minimum notice for other forms of early years provision. Daycare Trust believes that there should be a level playing ﬁeld in relation to the notice received by providers.

7.5 Local authorities also undertake their own inspections of early years’ provision. One of the aims of local authority inspections is to determine which provision receives funding to deliver the free part-time places for the most disadvantaged two year olds. Local authorities use their own inspection framework and grading criteria and require that nurseries complete different paperwork. Daycare Trust recommends greater coordination between Ofsted and local authority inspections to harmonise criteria for making judgments and to minimise administrative demands placed on nurseries.

8. The Future of aSingleInspectorate

8.1 Young children who receive early childhood education and care may attend a range of different settings including: — Nursery and reception classes in primary schools. — Local authority nurseries. — Sure Start children’s centres. — Voluntary and private sector day nurseries. — Sessional care settings run by public sector, voluntary sector or private providers. — Childminders. — Play groups. — After school and holiday care.

8.2 Prior to Ofsted taking over the inspection of childcare in 2005, different early years’ settings were inspected by different bodies, using a range of different methods. The quality of information made available to parents was much poorer before 2005 and Ofsted’s involvement. Additionally, bringing childminders into a uniﬁed early years inspection process has had a major impact on improving the quality of the learning environment for children cared for by childminders. Daycare Trust strongly recommends that the inspection of all early years provision remain the responsibility of one inspectorate.

8.3 At present, Ofsted has a strong brand identity. Many parents know that Ofsted inspects schools although they are less aware of its role inspecting early years’ settings. Parental awareness of early years inspection reports and their use of them is likely to be damaged if Ofsted’s inspection role is broken up and allocated to other organisations. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w27

9. ImprovingAccountability 9.1 Our research shows that about half of parents of young children use Ofsted reports before choosing early years provision, usually alongside other sources of information. We believe that awareness and use of Ofsted reports is lower for parents choosing an early years setting than it is for schools. As already noted, some of the information included in reports is not particularly accessible, and often quite superﬁcial. Daycare Trust recommends that Ofsted promote its role among parents and also review the format of its reports from the perspective of accessibility to parents. Efforts to involve a greater number of parents in inspections would also contribute to greater accountability. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Chailey Heritage School OfstedInquiry 1. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) — Improving outcomes, ensuring good outcomes for pupils/young people etc. — Supporting and improving self evaluation. — Accountability. — Identifying and evidencing signiﬁcant causes for concern.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement Maintaining and spreading good practice depends on the quality of inspection process. Good, reflective provisions welcome evidenced judgements that highlight the need for improvement. However, when the inspection process is weak or flawed and the judgements are not sufficiently evidenced/accurate and/or based on unclear standards then this has a poor impact on school improvement. It is essential therefore that judgements are evidenced and accurate and standards and benchmarks are clear, soundly based and well communicated; it is regrettable that there are occasions when this has not been the case. Limiting judgements can also affect the overall outcome of an inspection and adversely affect school improvement. We have concerns for mainstream colleagues who might be getting excellent value added achievements but might still not hit achievement targets. We are also concerned that that this might be a disincentive for schools to admit pupils with SEN with learning difficulties

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work — It can be excellent. From dealings we have had with Ofsted, the more senior staff and especially the Principal HMIs were excellent, demonstrating a real quality of thought and care about outcomes for the young people. However, there can be a “tick box” mentality that is evident in some inspections and even in some inspection frameworks. This can detract from the focus on outcomes for the users of the service. For example the inspection process and judgements can be more about what the regulations/NMS say needs to be in place, rather than whether procedures and outcomes meet the needs of the young people. — There are also some “rules”—that are not easy for provisions to source or know beforehand- that detract from the judgements made during the inspection itself. For example, it is apparently not possible for a Children’s Home to be rated outstanding on its ﬁrst inspection, and if a Children’s Home has been graded as inadequate it can not then be more than satisfactory in the next inspection. Such rigidity is not logical and damages respect for the overall inspection process. — NMS for different provisions need to match up. Currently the NMS for boarding schools and Children’s Homes are different and given the importance placed on these by inspectors during the inspection, they should be more similar. — Single issues can move an outstanding provision into inadequate. This can be an inappropriate response to something that can be put right relatively quickly. If it is also the case that it is not possible to move from inadequate back to good/outstanding this can have a devastating impact on a provision’s reputation. — The impact of the grading system on a provision’s reputation and use should not be underestimated. Some commissioners are now stating that they will only use provisions where the overall grade is “outstanding”. It is very important therefore that grades are correct, and that any negative ratings are thoroughly evidenced. It will not serve the needs of the young people/pupils if good provisions are placed at risk of closure.

4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process The experience of our provision has been that on the whole the education teams are well led, managed and work in consultation with the school. However, in our experience, the social care teams have been far less cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Education Committee: Evidence

professional. There were incidents where they did not conduct themselves in the way that Inspectors should. When we had a joint inspection, the two teams were not in agreement and conducted themselves differently. The ethos and processes of the two inspections were likewise different.

5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process Outcomes for the pupils/young people should be the most important part of an inspection. The weight given by social care inspectors to tick lists and “what we see on the day” seemed inappropriate, and in some critical areas such as administration of medication was not based on properly benchmarked and communicated standards

6. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate If the single inspectorate is truly integrated, and inspectors fully understand the areas they are inspecting, the answer is yes. However, putting teams together, bringing in inspectors who worked under another regime and are then brought into Ofsted, created comments from a social care inspector who felt she was underpaid in comparison to education inspectors. Ethos and processes should be similar as differences in these have been particularly apparent in joint inspections. For example, shared lesson observations were excellent but there was nothing similar in the social care inspection. It is also essential that teams work together in joint inspection.

7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy It is just as important that schools who have greater autonomy are accountable in a similar way to those who do not. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Jonathan Prest, Principal of Barton Peveril Sixth Form College If there were no Ofsted there would need to be one. A nationwide and independent accountability mechanism is essential, more so with greater independence of schools from local authority control. I have experienced six Ofsted inspections of colleges since 1987, have been college nominee on one of those occasions and Principal at two different colleges. My verdict would be that Ofsted does a Grade two “good” job. It is important to distinguish between Ofsted performance and the performance measures for colleges. The latter I would describe as excessive, muddled and ill thought through. 1. Ofsted plays a part in improving performance in Britain’s schools and colleges by establishing guidelines eg on what makes outstanding practice, by highlighting both good and poor practice in reports and by training Ofsted staff who also work in or return to the teaching profession. 2. Desk based analysis of data by Ofsted can provide significant information and may make many bread and butter inspections unnecessary. After the event (but not during) it is pleasant for outstanding and good schools and colleges to have the affirmation of an Ofsted report, and the best of them can be very well written. However, high quality self-assessment habits and robust data mean there is little Ofsted adds through its reporting. This may not offer good value for money in the current financial climate. 3. Identifying underperformance then carrying out inspections to provide an independent evaluation of issues remains essential for satisfactory and unsatisfactory provision. 4. Where Ofsted does carry out an inspection, resource needs to be sufficient to be able to draw sound conclusions. Where Ofsted tends to provide the weakest service is where it attempts to draw conclusions from too little information (eg on teaching and learning from a skimpy number of classroom observations). 5. Ofsted practices are not without inconsistency which serves to undermine its reputation. Three examples: (a) Lead inspectors have considerable power to influence the findings of an inspection. Based on almost identical data they reach difference conclusions. (b) FE colleges and sixth form colleges are measured against different benchmarks. A tertiary college (FE) with 2,000 A level students in a middle class catchment will be assessed “outstanding” against FE benchmarks whilst a sixth form college in an inner city with 1,000 A level students and similar outcomes might be “satisfactory” against sixth form college (and higher) benchmarks. (c) The inspection framework for schools is so different from colleges that comparison of grades can be misleading cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w29

I do not feel sufﬁciently knowledgeable to comment upon whether Ofsted is capable as an organisation of meeting its new wide ranging brief of pre-school and children’s services departments in local authorities. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Dr John Oversby, in a personal and independent capacity

1. My response will relate to inspections of secondary ITT programmes. I was, for a lengthy period, a subject Course Leader for a secondary PGCE/GTP university provider and, therefore, subject to regular inspections with respect to my subject course, as well as contributing to the provider’s overall report. I have also attended many meetings of secondary ITT providers arranged by the National Strategy, the TDA, and through meetings organised by The Association for Science Education, especially by its semi-autonomous group, The Association of Tutors in Science Education.

2. The OfSTED Framework for Inspection for ITT clariﬁed, initially, a detailed enquiry into course construction and implementation in partnership with colleagues in partnership schools, selection and assessment of course members, evaluation of the course, and actions to lead to improvement. Further developments of the Framework focused more on bureaucracy as a major source of evidence for establishing quality, linked with interviews of key personnel. The atmosphere was one of sampling, rather than a thorough enquiry of all aspects. I gained the distinct impression that this was an outcome of cost-saving measures, despite the ofﬁcial explanation of placing more responsibility for self-assessment.

3. Inspection data are used, in ITT, as a validation process of providers for accreditation of QTS. It is my view that this is a valid purpose of inspection that should be continued, although not as frequently as at present. Inspection data are also used to allocate target quotas for recruitment, through allocation to a few bands of quality. This process, carried out by the TDA, is not sufficiently transparent in relation to overall required numbers in different regions or in different subject disciplines in the secondary phase. Changes are often large and relatively sudden in some disciplines for some providers, making it difficult for them to manage change. Consultation with providers over allocation of target quotas is either opaque or non-existent, giving rise to inspection outcomes becoming very high risk information. In my view, this has led to a cautious approach which stifles much innovation. Provider leaders too often focus on the procedural aspects of inspection in an atmosphere of fear about the inspection outcomes and their potential devastating impact on overall provision by the provider. Construction of provider league table based on the approximate bands allocated by OfSTED creates a strong market orientation to ITT provision, sometimes exacerbating recruitment in regions where there is a shortage of suitable recruits.

4. In earlier Frameworks, the depth of OfSTED Inspector interviews with key personnel provided an excellent opportunity for these colleagues to review their work within an external framework, and to discuss contextual factors that impacted on their provision. This has been lost in more recent Frameworks that are based on paper-based self-evaluation as the major source of evidence collected by colleagues. Despite the integrity of the inspection teams, and their personal focus on the human side of ITT provision, this has resulted in the inspection becoming more remote from many of those engaged in providing ITT.

5. In some respects, the OfSTED inspection process has led to an improvement in ITT provision, through OfSTED’s explicit views of the purposes and implementation of ITT, through the opportunity for dialogic reflection with Inspectors, through oral debriefing reports following inspections, through a requirement for Action Plans, through OfSTED’s summaries of the outcomes of inspection cycles, and through consultations on Framework modification.

6. The inspection teams have, for the most part, been of high quality and very well trained. There have been a few occasions when some idiosyncratic views of some inspectors about mechanical procedures have been unable to be challenged, but have led to providers adopting new procedures to meet these views. The moderation process remains opaque, and this is unhelpful in understanding how some grading decisions have been reached. It should be possible to have some reporting of how moderating procedures have worked, to improve transparency and to give more credibility to the grades ﬁnally awarded. The weight given to different factors is clearly given in the Frameworks.

7. It is essential that ITT be inspected, although I recommend with less frequency than at present, but with greater interaction with those working directly with ITT students. I see no good reason why there should be a single inspectorate. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Martin Brader Use of Value for Money Judgements in SchoolInspections Dear Education Committee, 1. Ofsted issued supplementary guidance for inspectors here.7 2. One of the documents (Value for money_briefing for inspectorsSept10_final 050810.doc) refers to judgements about Value for Money. I have extracted the following from the guidance: The grade descriptors make plain that the starting point for this judgement is the quality of the outcomes for pupils regardless of the school’s level of funding. Inspectors are not expected to make comparisons about the performance of schools in the light of their relative funding. 3. How on earth can they make VfM judgements without taking account of relative funding? 4. VfM is the ratio of Benefit to Cost. 5. Ofsted have worked out how to measure the Benefit delivered by a school, they give Grades based on outcomes. It is relatively straight forward for them to find out how much funding a school receives per student ie the Cost. So why can't they just divide one by the other? 6. If you follow their guidance then two schools delivering similar outcomes but receiving significantly different levels of funding per student would receive similar VfM grades, this is nonsense. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by David Wright I would like to make a submission to the Ofsted inquiry with regards to the impact of the inspection process on school improvement. At the moment the inspection process is detrimental to school improvement. This is because notice of inspections is given which means that the school has time to change before the inspectors arrive. As an example our local secondary school having received notice of an inspection gave two days holiday to all the pupils they did not want the inspectors to meet. The staff also dressed up smartly for the duration of the inspection. This means that a true picture of the school was not obtained so it is impossible to tell if the school has improved. This practice is common amongst the secondary schools in our area so I would suggest is probably common across the country. I am a governor of an infant school that has been judged outstanding by every inspection. Although there are some good points to Ofsted inspections too often they force us to look at peripheral functions of the school that do not apply in our locality rather than concentrate on the main functions of a school. It would be better if the framework was more ﬂexible to take into account local variations. Our head teacher is very much in favour of no notice inspections as she says this will give a true picture of schools and reduce greatly the stress amongst staff on the lead up to inspections. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Frank Shore 1. Summary Ofsted inspections are too short in time scale and rely too much on Schools self-evaluation process, unless visits are more thorough they should be scrapped. They have been tailored so as to cause little stress to members of the teaching staff and head teachers and this totally undermines their effectiveness.

2. My Background I write as a former Chair of Governors of a community school and a chartered accountant with some 40 years experience in business and with the ﬁnancial audit process. The views expressed are my personal views.

3. Submission Ofsted visits are too short and rely too much on meetings with the head teacher and on the schools own self evaluation of its processes. The ﬁnancial audit of a medium sized business takes several days or weeks and auditors speak with staff as and when they deem necessary. Whereas an extensive Ofsted visit is about two days and inspectors are given access to certain staff members only who will have prepared for the visit. It is just not possible for an inspector to form a true view of a school in these circumstances. 7 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Education-and-skills/Schools/Supplementary- guidance-and-resources-for-inspectors cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w31

Inspectors should attend School Leadership Team and Governors meetings to ensure that the management and Governance processes truly are effective.

4. Recommendation Inspectors should visit schools on several separate occasions over the course of a term and some of these visits should be unannounced so that inspectors are better above to see the school as it really is and truly hold the headteacher and teaching staff to account as happens in many other professions. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Incorporated Society of Musicians Short Summary 1. The Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) is the professional body for music and musicians with over 5,400 members and approximately 100 corporate members. 2. There has been a substantial positive change in the approach of OFSTED to music education from what was, in 2001, a harmful, negative approach to an approach which is far more positive and pedagogically informed. 3. This change is in part due to a constantly improving strong consultative approach by the OFSTED’S National Adviser for Music.

About the Incorporated Society of Musicians 1.1 The Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) is the professional body for music and musicians. 1.2 Sir Adrian Boult, Sir Thomas Beecham, Sir Malcolm Sargent, The Lord Menuhin OM KBE (Yehudi Menuhin), Sir David Willcocks and Dame Gillian Weir are all past chairs of the Incorporated Society of Musicians. Our internationally recognised Distinguished Musician Award, ﬁrst awarded in 1976, has been received by Sir William Walton OM, Jacqueline du Pre OBE, Sir Michael Tippett OM CH CBE, Sir Colin Davis CBE, Sir Charles Mackerras AC CH CBE and Pierre Boulez. 1.3 Founded in 1882, we have over 5,400 individual members who come from all branches of the profession: soloists, orchestral and ensemble performers, composers, teachers, academics, a current Mercury Prize nominee and students. Our corporate membership of approximately 100 organisations includes Classic FM, the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM), the Worshipful Company of Musicians, the Association of British Orchestras, all the conservatoires, several universities and specialist music schools. 1.4 We are independent of government and not ﬁnancially dependent on any third party. Our Chief Executive, Deborah Annetts, now chairs the Music Education Council, the umbrella body for music education in the UK.

OFSTED and MusicEducation 2.1 We believe it would be helpful to remind the committee of an inspection report by OFSTED which was widely criticised when published by the Times Educational Supplement in December 2001.8 This will serve to illustrate the transformation that has occurred in recent years. 2.2 A school music department had been “heavily criticised for placing too much emphasis on fun and enjoyment”. 2.3 In his paper on this OFSTED report, published in 2003 in the British Journal of Music Education (BJME) a paper titled OFSTED, fun, and learning: a case study of a school music inspection,9 Peter Cope raised serious concerns about this approach. 2.4 Cope highlights in his paper that even positive elements of the teaching are presented in the OFSTED report as negative: “In music, the emphasis has been placed on enjoyment rather than raising standards, so that while pupils’ enthusiasm for the subject has rocketed, they are still underachieving.” And Cope argues that the successful encouragement of enjoyment seems to be disregarded altogether.

CurrentStatus 3.1 However, the attitude of OFSTED has now improved a great deal, with Mark Phillips HMI—a former Advanced Skills Teacher—ensuring that professional musicians involved in music education are carefully consulted on, and informed of, changes in levels, subjects, and grade descriptors. 8 Inspection Report No. 199478, OFSTED, 2001. 9 OFSTED, fun, and learning: a case study of a school music inspection, Peter Cope, British Journal of Music Education (2003), 20:3:307–315 Cambridge University Press http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=185109 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Education Committee: Evidence

3.2 The ISM, with a significant membership involved in music education, was included in recent consultations on OFSTED’s draft subject criteria and our submitted evidence taken on board and included where possible. We feel that, within the subject specific consultations, our views are seriously considered and adopted where appropriate, enhancing music education and the benefits it can bring to the pupil. 3.3 The continually improving consultative stance taken by OFSTED in relation to music education is excellent, particularly when compared to the recent past highlighted above. There is a real desire to consult with and engage music educators at all levels. This in turn produces more responsive and trusted guidance.

Recommendations for the future 4.1 We welcome the fact that guidance and levels from OFSTED are designed to be taken holistically and not taught rigidly. However, some teachers still feel the need to teach and mark pupils according to speciﬁc OFSTED criteria. OFSTED have made it clear this is not intended, so what is needed now is very clear communication by OFSTED as a whole—beyond what is possible in individual inspections—of the aims and intended use of all guidance. 4.2 OFSTED would be a particularly effective body through which incorrect attitudes of head teachers could be challenged. In particular, two harmful attitudes have been displayed: The assumption that attainment should always follow a linear relationship over time and result in continual improvement and the sometimes harmful practice of requiring teachers to focus on speciﬁc criteria where a more holistic approach would be helpful. 4.3 Finally, whilst it may not be possible for the creation of guidance to start from a blank slate, nevertheless, the involvement of music educators and academics at every stage of development should be the norm.

Conclusion 5.1 We welcome the direction OFSTED is moving in and look forward to continuing our work together to improve teaching and learning and ensure that music educators are consulted at every stage of the development of guidance and criteria. We are particularly pleased that the negative attitudes of the past seem to have been left behind. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Michael Bassey ExecutiveSummary Whether Ofsted has of itself raised standards in schools over the 19 years of its inspections is not clear, but certainly it has raised awareness of the need for schools to do this. Now that schools are gaining greater autonomy, Ofsted inspections should be replaced by the more effective local accountability of school self- evaluation supported by partner schools and governing bodies. Ofsted is a quango that has served its purpose. It can go.

Submitter Emeritus Professor Michael Bassey, Nottingham Trent University, former president and academic secretary of the British Educational Research Association and Academician of the Academy of Social Sciences. Website: www.free-school-from-government-control.com

PointsDiscussed in thisSubmission asRequested in theBrief — What the purposes of inspection should be … (my submission is limited to consideration of schools) — The impact of the inspection process on school improvement. — The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy.

FactualInformation 1. When Ofsted was established in 1992, Professor Sutherland, its ﬁrst chief inspector, wrote in his Annual Report that“the intention of, and even the justiﬁcation for, OFSTED’s existence is to make a contribution, through these inspections, to raising standards and improving the quality of educational experience and provision.”10 This remains the case, as stated in a recent document that “Ofsted's main aim is to help improve the quality and standards of education …”11 Ofsted has however grown since Sutherland’s time, now employing 2,000 civil servants and costing over £200 million12—albeit with a wider brief than the original focus on schools. 10 Standards and Quality in Education 1992–93 Stewart R Sutherland. 11 Ofsted Strategic Plan for 2003–2006. 12 Resource Accounts 2009–10. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w33

2. Before 1993 there were no systematic, regular inspections of schools. For a long period up to the late 1980s there had been little obvious change in school standards but, when the GCSE replaced 0-level and CSE in 1988, secondary schools began a slow process of improvement. Likewise the Education Reform Act of the same year with its stringent (if over-powering) national curriculum and national curriculum assessment gave teachers in both primary and secondary schools the tools needed to raise standards of achievement of their pupils. Ofsted inspections did not start until four years later in 1992. Over the next 18 years, increasingly, central government (both conservative and labour) tried to micromanage the teaching and administration of schools and Ofsted, by damning schools which didn’t conform, became in effect an enforcement agency.

3. It has ever been a difficult issue to know to what extent Ofsted has fulfilled its purpose of “improving the quality and standards of education”. While the easy-to-measure parameter of the percentage of 15-year-olds achieving 5 or more A*–C grades at GCSE has shown a steady rise during Ofsted’s life-time, it needs to be pointed out that that rise was happening from the very start of the GCSE—five years before Ofsted had any impact. Indeed for the first 10 years of Ofsted’s existence the rise was less pronounced than it had been beforehand and the current acceleration may be due to schools becoming ‘streetwise’ about ways of changing the subject range offered.

Percentage of 15- year-olds achieving 5 or more A*-C at GCSE

40 Ofsted inspections began in 1993; 30 by 2006 all pupils had been in schools 20 inspected throughout their entire school careers. 10

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

4. Looking at primary schools the measure of KS2 test results shows that the national average result for those achieving level four in English + maths + science, after a climb from 1997 to 2000, and a slight climb to 2008, is now levelling out.

National average KS2 level 4+ English + Maths + Science

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1997 to 2009

5. Yes, standards have risen, but whether Ofsted can claim much credit is doubtful. Standards rise because young people choose to study hard, are taught well by their teachers, are encouraged by their parents, and inﬂuenced by a positive climate towards school work by their peer group of class-mates.

6. As schools become more autonomous (as is the Coalition government’s policy) and act as collegial entities responsible for their own development, the role of Ofsted withers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Education Committee: Evidence

7. Accountability needs to move away from inspection and arise through self-evaluation of schools, moderated by partner schools and the deliberations of governing bodies. The fundamental question “Are standards as good as can be?” should be answered by the school itself—not by external bodies like Ofsted. This is how effective progress happens. 8. Schools do not need external inspection as though they were industrial factories . Raising standards is best achieved from internal evaluation—as Professor MacBeath13] and others have shown and as schools have discovered. 9. Education is not an industry. Teachers are not technicians. Classrooms are not production lines. Students arriving are not inputs, nor outputs when they leave. Schools are not factories, but places where students and teachers, supported by parents and governors, work and live together in order to nurture and develop the interests and abilities in many dimensions of the students by engaging in the human activity of the pursuit of learning.

Recommendations forAction by theGovernment Ofsted is no longer needed for school inspection. It is a quango that can go. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Paul Carvin, Head of Raising Achievement Service, Gateshead Council In response to the Education Committee inquiry and call for evidence into the role and performance of Ofsted, a number of school inspectors (Ofsted trained) in the Raising Achievement Service (RAS) have collaboratively discussed the seven questions, and would like to offer the following collective responses:—

1. Purposes ofInspection — To ensure that all children, young people and adults in publicly funded education/training experience provision which meets deﬁned standards — To enable performance of providers to be assessed against published criteria and through a uniform process — To provide a means of effecting public accountability — To identify good practice — To provide information to government/and to provide information to service users/the public to inform learner choice — To provide feedback as a support to continuous improvement — To ensure appropriate use of public funds — To monitor compliance with statutory requirements eg re safeguarding, equality and diversity etc. — There is still a real need for Ofsted inspections. They are a monitoring tool for performance and provision and help to ensure children receive the highest quality provision. (a) Raise standards in all areas at all levels and challenge achievement. (b) Protecting interests of children and ensuring happy, safe, achieving. (c) Give direction and report back on quality of T&L/L&M. — Raise standards and achievement, consistency of expectations, support SE. — Quality assurance of self evaluation, support and challenge schools in their improvement agenda, process whereby the two partners (Ofsted and school) come to a mutual understanding of the current performance and future priorities of the school.

2. Impact of theInspection onSchoolImprovement — There needs to be an external check as there may be a lack of challenge. Benchmarked against other schools.

3. Performance of Ofsted Generally this is good. (a) Mostly consistent. Clear set of criteria for inspections. Systems and processes are adhered to. (b) Current system is focused. (c) Ofsted “fear” 13 J MacBeath and A McGlynn Self Evaluation, “What’s in it for Schools” Routledge Falmer (2002). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w35

— is this a lack of knowledge about the process? — also a lack of consistency. Sometimes there is a lack of credibility about some inspectors who haven’t regular direct involvement with school improvement. Short reports are good.

4. Consistency and Quality ofInspectionTeams — There is a limited consistency in the teams, but helpline and monitoring assist to retain some commonality of consistency and quality. — There appears to be inconsistencies based on the evidence within the authority’s schools. Where authorities (like Gateshead) know their schools well we can identify cases of inconsistency. Need to improve QA of inspection Teams to address this issue speciﬁcally by a clear deﬁnition and consistent application of the QA inspector role ie to always monitor the critical judgements and the process by which they are arrived at. — Need to have a greater involvement of LA personnel, SIP—for example, by including SIPs in any situation where “borderline” judgements are emerging (could be visit or telephone contact). — It is qualitative and evaluative process which leads to consistency.

5. WeightGiven toDifferentFactors — Attainment/Achievement/T&L main emphasis — L&M too broad (keep impact on T&L essential). (Remove parent partnerships, equalities, community cohesion and put into section (much smaller) on ETHOS. — Remove ECM and place in smaller section on ETHOS. — Safeguarding (not included) but separately inspected by Early Years inspectors (only £80 per day) or H&S executive. — CGS (includes Safeguarding element only). — Early Years/6th Form should they be separate? (only separate as a statutory framework—could be appealed). — Our suggestion is that the inspection is Holistic and should be part of a continuous process throughout a school. — Safeguarding—to raise consequence.

6. A singleInspectorate — No, current system too dogmatic and unwieldly. Lacking focus.

7. Role of Ofsted—SchoolsOperating withGreaterAutonomy Need to consider what the basis of the autonomy is eg: — may be through a change of status resulting in a different relationship with the LA and subsequent loss of oversight/support — may be a consequence of high level of performance and no inspection unless performance falls If we take these two factors together it could be that the reduced oversight and support presents a risk factor in relation to performance. Greater autonomy may therefore create a need for stronger accountability mechanisms. The question then is how this mechanism is best effected. This could be either:— — directly through Ofsted — to Ofsted via a local agency, potentially Local Authority — to DfE via Local Authority The last Option+ offers the advantages of being most cost effective as the monitoring agent is closest to the individual institution and of triggering an Ofsted involvement only where an issue arises. It also maintains a link between “autonomous” providers and LAs as the “owners” of school improvement, it supports “localism”, and it provides a basis for maintaining ‘families of providers’ where increased autonomy might otherwise militate against this. — Yes, very important. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Staffordshire County Council What thePurposes ofInspectionShould be?(Relating not only toSchools but to all Organisations,Settings andServices under Ofsted’sRemit) 1. Ofsted currently has three main purposes of inspection which are to: — ensure regulations, statutory guidance and minimum standards are adhered too; — provide service users with information about the effectiveness of the provider in order to improve public confidence; — help bring about improvement (such as the life chances, opportunities and outcomes for vulnerable young people) by identifying strengths and areas for improvement; and — to provide the relevant secretary of state with an independent public account of the quality of service provision. 2. The current purposes of inspection are still appropriate; however, it is useful to explore how the purposes are fulfilled and how they are aligned to current government policy. Ofsted’s remit could be widened to allow for liaison with providers and authorities to improve services; this was a valuable part of the CSCI remit which was lost when Ofsted inherited the role of CSCI. 3. There is a need to adopt a consistent approach to all inspections. For example, the inspection of school 6th forms is undertaken as part of the school inspection and is such the provision does not receive the same level of scrutiny as inspections of other post 16 institutions eg colleges, independent private providers. As the inspection report informs the strategic commissioning and performance management processes undertaken by the local authority it is important that comparable data sources for both school 6th forms and other post 16 providers are available. 4. Although the Ofsted inspection process does help to bring about quality improvements, the inspectors could be more transparent in the identification of the appropriate corrective actions immediately after the inspection has concluded. As the inspection team has identified the respective areas for improvement through the inspection process, it is best placed to provide more timely initial direction whilst in situation after the final feedback meeting. The support role could then be picked up by the quality improvement agency when it is in place. This practice would accelerate the quality improvement process. This happens in some inspections (ie safeguarding and looked after children inspections) but is not consistent practice across all inspections Ofsted conduct. 5. The Ofsted inspection process needs to adapt to the potential increase in consortia arrangements amongst providers. The current inspection process does not differentiate between single providers and consortia arrangements and consequently the quality of provision of the subcontractor is not reported upon to inform user choice. This situation will become more apparent if the Skills Funding Agency increase the minimum contract levels and consequently increase consortia working. 6. The inspection of Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) needs to review its evaluation process to ensure consistency. On occasions, Ofsted inspectors initially judges SCRs as inadequate but following challenges from Local Authorities, these judgements are often re-graded. Reviewing the judgement criteria to ensure it is consistent and delivers the appropriate outcome may help reduce the number of challenges Ofsted have. 7. The two-week safeguarding and looked-after children inspection is meant to be a multi-agency assessment. However, the reality is that the focus of the inspection was on the children’s social care team and what they do. The remit of the inspection needs to be clearer, is it an integrated inspection or an inspection of the local authority with a CQC inspector that attends for part of the process. 8. The regulation of the various private providers is an essential tool for local authorities to inform their commissioning practices. The sharing of intelligence about providers contributes to market growth and management. 9. Ofsted’s regulatory role with Adoption, Fostering and Children’s Residential Services is key to both improving quality, securing resources assessing compliance with the regulations and standards ensures services are continuously improving.

TheImpact of theInspectionProcess onSchoolImprovement 10. Ofsted inspection reports have had a signiﬁcant impact on the school improvement process by ensuring that urgent action is taken when organisations are criticised. However the simplistic judgement process can lead to successful schools not paying sufﬁcient regard to any criticisms beneath “Good” and “Outstanding” judgements and people forgetting that NTI/Failing organisations usually have strengths upon which they can build. The inspection process should help all schools to improve and those schools that are doing least well to improve the most. 11. The focus on post 16 within schools is often “lost” within the whole school inspection. The challenge to improving this phase needs to be greater, with more transparent measures which enable effective comparison between providers of post 16. For example, drop out rates/retention across years, fail rates at AS and A level, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w37

and the proportion of learners who undertake a course of study but then do not enter the exam are often ﬁgures not reported or readily available. In FE this is captured with the success rate calculation. 12. The inspection process has resulted in sharper processes in many schools and does provide a quality assurance framework across the country.

ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarryingOut itsWork 13. Ofsted often quotes statistics to suggest that most organisations are happy with its performance. This may be as much an expression of post inspection relief for most organisations that have not failed, as genuine appreciation of its performance in carrying out its work. Many organisations continue to be concerned that Ofsted judgements are too closely tied to quantitative measures, especially as it appears that organisations in more privileged environments tend to do better than those serving more disadvantaged communities. 14. There is a need for regular communication meetings between Ofsted and the Local Authority in order to inform the inspection process. The regular communication meetings would also provide an opportunity to discuss the outcomes of recent provider inspections and to share updates to agency policies. It would also support an overview of provision in the area and reporting on “themes”. 15. Developing a business relations role between the local authority and Ofsted would give a valuable opportunity to improve the quality through working together to establish best practice.

TheConsistency andQuality ofInspectionTeams in the OfstedInspectionProcess 16. In broad terms, consistency and quality appear to be upheld but there are still times when individual judgements appear to be unbalanced by too much weight being accorded to particular criteria. 17. Ofsted needs to give consistent messages across all inspections, for examples schools are given inconsistent messages by Ofsted on safeguarding issues around staffing and recruitment or visitors to school. This causes problems for both schools and local authorities in a number of areas. 18. The scheduling of inspections could be revised to improve the consistency of inspection teams and to improve value for money. The ratio of inspectors for small providers is high compared to the ratio applied to a large provider (this applies to all inspections including the safeguarding and looked after children inspection). This may lead to inconsistencies in the rigour of the inspection as large providers may receive fewer observations and less documentation may be reviewed whereas smaller providers may receive a more intense inspection. 19. A solution may lie in the scheduling of inspections. The inspections of small and larger providers which are located within a reasonable proximity of each other and deliver provision in the same sector areas could be undertaken simultaneously and sector specialist inspectors could conduct both inspections on a staggered basis. This would provide a more efficient use of the inspector’s time and save on accommodation, transport costs etc compared to the costs associated with an inspector conducting two inspections on separate occasions. This approach would provide an opportunity for Ofsted to conduct inspections of small and large providers with a more consistent level of rigour. 20. There is variation in interpretation of aspects of the inspection schedule (for example, safeguarding and looked after children inspections). 21. Ofsted needs to improve the reputation, for example, critics believe that the outcome of the inspection may depend on the specific team allocated.

AnyComments about theEffectiveness of theInspectionTeam 22. There is a need to ensure that inspection teams continue to remain diverse and have the correct background and experience to inspect the settings they are responsible for.

The WeightGiven toDifferentFactors within theInspectionProcess 23. The relative weighting given to different factors appears to change after each review. The weighting should reﬂect improvements in the inspection process but can also be affected by political imperatives. The weighting Ofsted gives to different factors can also provide a powerful incentive to providers to focus on those areas. Therefore, alignment with key policy priorities (such as closing the gap for disadvantaged learners) would be helpful in steering providers’ efforts. 24. For the common inspection framework for Further Education & Skills 2009, greater weighting needs to be awarded to the provision of good information, advice and guidance. Robust information advice and guidance has positive affects on reducing failure rates and early leavers and therefore needs to be considered with an increased emphasis during the inspection process. 25. Areas where new freedoms are awarded should also be subject to new scrutiny in order to secure accountability and a view of the way a provider is using their freedoms eg in admissions, in breadth of curriculum, in improving progression. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Education Committee: Evidence

WhetherInspection of allOrganisations,Settings andServices toSupportChildren’s Learning andWelfare isBestConducted by aSingleInspectorate

26. In order for the Ofsted inspection to fulﬁl its purposes the inspectors need to have the appropriate skills and experience in the respective education sectors, occupational sectors and speciﬁc elements of the framework. Although some of these skills and competencies are generic and can be transferred across different educational sectors, many of them are specialist. There is a concern that by having a single inspectorate the requisite expertise may be lost and the inspection process will be devalued.

TheRole of Ofsted inProviding anAccountabilityMechanism forSchoolsOperating with GreaterAutonomy

27. We all agree that with greater freedom and autonomy comes the need for greater transparency and accountability. Readily accessible, impartial and comparable measures across providers will be absolutely crucial both to learners and parents making choices, to providers/commissioners seeking to secure the best provision to meet the needs of children and young people. Ofsted has a crucial role to play in this.

28. Publication of the review of data—the desk based assessment that helps to inform decision to trigger inspection—would be very helpful, especially in an accessible format for a wider audience. Therefore, even when inspection intervals are widely spaced (due to strong performance) there would be annual conﬁrmation of the underpinning performance data and trends that inform this.

29. The purposes of inspection are equally applicable to both local authority maintained and non-local authority maintained schools. Differences do occur however post inspection as local authority maintained schools will receive quality improvement support from the SIPs whereas non local authority maintained schools will need to commission support independently. Although schools opting out of local authority maintained status have greater autonomy many of them are still subject to Ofsted inspection and therefore the role of Ofsted as an accountability mechanism has generally not weakened. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Jonathon Godfrey, Principal, Hereford Sixth Form College — I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that OFSTED should focus on Teaching & Learning and Leadership but feel learning and welfare of students would be better monitored by separate inspectorates. — OFSTED reports and gradings provide a useful management tool in confirming self-assessment judgements and motivating staff. — Parents and students value regular monitoring of Schools and Colleges by an authoritative, external body. — Overall grades awarded by inspection are based to a large extent on data (raw examination results and retention). Whilst these should be major performance indicators, there is little acknowledgement of value added. The result is overall grades tend to reflect the social background of student intake in many cases. A consistent view from OFSTED on how to interpret value-added is required and this should be reflected in overall grades. — Currently differential benchmarks are used to compare providers. There is no justification for only comparing data on Sixth Form Colleges with other Sixth Form Colleges. This can result in perverse outcomes where GFE and SFCs are located in the same town such that a GFE with lower success rates can be graded higher than its neighbour SFC. — Different criteria are applied to school sixth forms, where, for example, course retention is not recorded or taken into consideration. — There is no objective measure of value for money although OFSTED do comment on it. This should be a key indicator in the coming years. — Comments made on value for money in school sixth forms are made with no supporting evidence. — Sixth Form Colleges have robust self-assessment procedures which generate extremely thorough annual self-assessment reports. Future inspection frameworks and the performance management role of the Local Authority should reflect this. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w39

Memorandum submitted by The Howard League for Penal Reform

1. Introduction

1. The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform charity in the world. In 1947 we became one of the ﬁrst non-governmental organisations to be granted consultative status with the United Nations. In April 2010 the UN published our statement on inspections of places of detention to the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, with regard to the optional protocol to the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (See Appendix 1)14

2. In 2002 we set up a legal department to represent children and young people in the penal system, following a successful judicial review against the home ofﬁce that forced it to recognise that the Children Act 1989 protects children in prison. The Howard League for Penal Reform legal team has represented hundreds of children and has a track record of successes in forcing improvements to conditions for children in custody.

3. The Howard League for Penal Reform (2006) published an independent inquiry, conducted by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC into the use of physical restraint, solitary conﬁnement and forcible strip searching in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes. The inquiry concluded that the treatment of children in custody would, in any other setting, be considered abusive and trigger a child protection investigation.

4. Our response to this inquiry is based on our work with children in custody and our comments are limited to Ofsted inspections of secure training centres (STCs).

2(i) Children inDetention

On 10 September 2010, there were 2,193 children in custody. This included 164 children in secure children’s homes, 266 children in secure training centres and 1,763 children in young offender institutions. The three different custodial institutions holding children are subject to different inspection regimes and different criteria are used to assess their performance. Ofsted has responsibility for inspecting secure children’s homes and secure training centres.

2(ii) Secure Children’s Homes (SCHs)

Secure children’s homes are run by local authority social services departments, overseen by the department of health and the department for education. They hold children sentenced to custody by the courts and also those placed there for welfare reasons under the Children Act 1989. Regarding children who have been sentenced to custody, secure children’s homes generally hold younger children aged 12 to 14 and girls up to the age of 16. They also hold boys aged 15 to 16 who have been assessed as vulnerable by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) The YJB has contracts with 10 secure children’s homes to provide places for 191 children.

Ofsted inspections are conducted in accordance with the Care Standards Act 2000 and judgements in reports are made in relation to the outcomes for children set out in the Children Act 2004. The criteria are the same as those used to inspect non-secure children’s homes.

2(iii) Secure Training Centres (STCs)

STCs were designed, ﬁnanced and built by private companies originally to hold children aged 12 to 15, but subsequently children up to 17 years old. There are currently four STCs which are contracted by the Youth Justice Board to hold children in secure custody. They are Medway STC in Kent, Rainsbrook in Rugby, Hassockﬁeld in Durham and Oakhill in Milton Keynes.

Ofsted inspections are conducted in accordance with the statutory rules inspections of STCs made under section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and in line with section 37(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which states that the principle aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children.

2(iv) Young Offender Institutions (YOIs)

YOIs are prisons run by the prison service to hold boys aged 15 to 17 and girls aged 17. Prisons hold the majority of children in custody. 14 Not published on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Education Committee: Evidence

YOIs are inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (HMIP). HMIP inspects performance of YOIs against the model of a healthy prison, as first defined by the World Health Organisation. The four criteria of a healthy prison are: Safety: prisoners, even the most vulnerable are held safely Respect: prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity Purposeful activity: prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them Resettlement: prisoners are prepared for their release into the community and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending HMIP (2009) has clearly defined criteria for assessing the treatment and conditions for children held in prison custody, as defined in Expectations. The criteria reflect the distinct needs of children.

3. What Should be the Purpose of Inspection? 3(i) The principle purpose of inspection should be to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in custody is promoted. Inspections should focus upon the treatment of children in custody to ensure that international children’s rights standards, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, are complied with. They should ensure that safety is maintained in order to promote positive outcomes for children detained and for the public. 3(ii) The framework for inspections should be based on children’s rights legislation including the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Inspections should be child-focused and take account of the Every Child Matters framework. Children should be seen as children first and foremost. The experiences of children should be central to all inspection reports. 3(iii) Inspections should identify and encourage good practice and press for improvements, both at the level of the institution and the service as a whole. Inspections should ensure that children receive a high quality service and that it meets their needs. 3(iv) Inspections must expose bad practice. In order to do this, inspections cannot be cursory or superficial. Secure training centres detain some of the most vulnerable children in the country and it is vital that conditions for these children are subject to the most rigorous independent scrutiny. 3(v) The views of children should be integral to the inspection process. These should be collated through confidential focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. The views of families and children who have recently left custody should also be sought.

4. ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarrying out itsWork 4(i) Ofsted has failed to safeguard and promote the well-being of children in secure training centres. The Howard League for Penal Reform has grave concerns about the safety of children held in STCs and believes they have been subject to violence, danger, fear and possibly abuse. Ofsted has failed to acknowledge this and prevent it. 4(ii) The use of force on children held in STCs is widespread. Figures from the YJB show that between April 2008 and March 2009, restraint was used 1,792 times on children held in STCs (Hansard, 2010). We are concerned that restraint is being used disproportionately on black and ethnic minority children and on girls. 37% of the restraints were carried out on girls who comprise just 20% of the population of STCs. 27% of restraints were carried out on black and ethnic minority children. 4(iii) Despite widespread criticism on the use of pain compliant methods of restraint from Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the parliamentary joint committee on human rights, the United Nations committee on the rights of the child and the commissioner for human rights in the Council of Europe among others, Ofsted inspections have been blithely uncritical of the use of force in STCs. 4(iv) Ofsted’s failure to acknowledge and identify the widespread and inappropriate use of restraint has left children unprotected. The inspection regime for STCs has failed to provide assurance that children in these institutions are being cared for safely. 4(v) Restraint was used 127 times on children in Medway STC in the first three months of 2009, an average of 42 times a month (Hansard, 2010a), yet the Ofsted inspection of Medway STC in September 2009 stated that, “There are well established procedures in place to ensure that the use of these measures is minimal, appropriate and proportionate, and they are only used as a last resort.” 4(vi) There is little evidence that Ofsted consulted children confidentially regarding the use of restraint, nor that inspectors independently verified the information provided by the management, for example, by reviewing CCTV footage of restraint incidents. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w41

4(vii) Children are sustaining injuries following the use of restraint in STCs. Between April 2007 and March 2009, 101 children at Medway STC sustained injuries during restraint which required medical treatment. These injuries include cuts, scratches, nosebleeds, bruising and sprains (Hansard, 2010a). Our legal team frequently receives complaints from children in secure training centres about restraint. 4(viii) Two children have died while being held in an STC. In both instances restraint was a key factor. Gareth Myatt died in Rainsbrook STC whilst being restrained by staff in April 2004. He was 15 years old. Adam Rickwood took his own life after he had been restrained by staff at Hassockfield STC in August 2004. He was 14 years old and the youngest child to die in penal custody in the last 25 years. 4(ix) The Howard League for Penal Reform (2009) has raised specific concerns about the performance of Ofsted in carrying out inspections of the privately run and managed secure training centres (STCs). On 21 December, we wrote to Christine Gilbert, Chief executive of Ofsted, expressing concern about an unannounced Ofsted inspection of Medway STC, which took place in September 2009. (See appendix 215). 4(x) Children do not appear to be consulted by inspectors. The consultation of children should be central to the inspection of secure training centres and inspectors should adopt best practice from HMIP, such as the use of confidential surveys to obtain the views of children who are locked up. Children in custody are less likely to speak openly about their treatment and conditions for fear of reprisals and therefore should be interviewed in a confidential environment away from other staff. Inspectors should take proactive steps to assist children with comprehending and expressing their opinions where needed. 4(xi) Inspectors do not always corroborate data provided by the facility through direct or indirect observations such as CCTV. Inspectors should always ensure they independently verify all information provided by facilities. 4(xii) Finally, we are concerned that inspectors are not importing and applying the good practise that exists in other settings when inspecting secure training centres. For example, improvements in the provision of school meals have not been applied when assessing the nutritional value of meals in STCs.

5. The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process 5(i) We are concerned that inspection teams have established a different way of judging provision for children in STCs, compared to their assessment of provision in children’s homes. A consistent approach should be adopted when inspecting services for children, regardless of the institution. Inspections should use good practice and established criteria used to judge provision for and the treatment of children in everyday settings and inspect custody against the standards set in the community. The quality of services in STCs, such as healthcare and education, should be equal to the quality of services provided to children in the community and inspectors should not compromise on standards. Indeed, we would argue that special care should be in place to protect children in locked institutions as the history of abuse of such children is notorious. 5(ii) We are concerned that inspectors are applying the premise that the children in STCs are young offenders ﬁrst and children second. Inspections omit any mention of the Children Act 1989 or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children in custody are children ﬁrst and foremost. Inspectors should not accept the unequal treatment of children who are locked up. 5(iii) We are concerned that the methodology of the Ofsted inspections is opaque. Good practice, as delineated by HMIP, includes detailed description of the processes used so that the inspectors can be held to account.

6. Recommendations 6(i) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Every Child Matters framework and the UN Optional Protocol for the Prevention of Torture should be at the heart of the inspection framework. 6(ii) Ofsted should apply, at the very minimum, the same principles and processes as HMIP when inspecting children in custody. HMIP has developed a model of good practice in inspection since it was created in 1982 and there is much that Ofsted can learn when it comes to protecting people in custody and promoting their welfare. 1. HMIP undertakes inspections according to its own methodology and published assessment criteria and standards, termed expectations. These expectations are grounded in human rights principles and are the basis for robust, independent and evidence-based assessment of conditions in prisons and the treatment of prisoners. The inspection process is open and accountable. 2. HMIP has developed and set out the detailed criteria used to inspect and appraise prisons. The criteria cover everything from the moment a prisoner leaves court till the moment he or she steps out of prison. 3. Inspections are based on the observations of inspectors, the documents available in the prison, the views of staff and through other sources, including CCTV footage. 4. Inspections are carried out by inspectors with prison, probation, social work, healthcare and substance abuse skills and experience, alongside specialist education and training inspectors. 15 Not published on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Education Committee: Evidence

5. Central to the findings of inspections are the confidential surveys and interviews of a randomly selected group of prisoners. Listening and consulting with prisoners is integral to the inspection process. 6. HMIP undertakes thematic reviews in order to tackle large systemic problems in places of detention. These have improved practices in places of detention and influenced and developed HMIP’s own inspection criteria, and therefore the process of inspection 6(iii) We reluctantly conclude that Ofsted should retain responsibility for inspecting STCs. It is the inspectorate which is charged with being child-focused and has responsibility for inspecting providers of social care for children, including children’s homes, residential special schools, boarding schools and secure children’s homes. 6(iv) However, a complete overhaul of the system and personnel should take place. There should be a separate department within Ofsted, with responsibility for children in residential accommodation, including children’s homes, residential schools and secure accommodation. Children who are placed in residential care, particularly those who are there against their will, need special protection to ensure their welfare is promoted and protected. 6(v) Staff who conduct inspections of custodial facilities should have specialist knowledge of a range of issues which are specific to children in secure custody, such as the use of control and restraint, discipline procedures and youth justice legislation. 6(vi) Inspection teams must have regard for, and understanding of, the vulnerable nature of children detained in custody. Outcomes should be aligned to the needs of this group, and services provided should be judged against a needs-based analysis. The welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration for inspectors. 6(vii) Inspectors should have regard of the national overview of secure training centres and assess and make recommendations based on this, rather than being concerned entirely with the operations within one STC. 6(viii) Ofsted, in its current format, is failing to protect the welfare of children in STCs. Should this continue, then responsibility for STCs should pass to another agency. October 2010

References Hansard (2010), HC Deb, 27 July 2010, col 925W. Hansard (2010a) HC written answers, 14 Sept 2010, Cols 983–984W. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (2009) Expectations: criteria for assessing the treatment and conditions for children and young people held in prison custody. London. HMIP. The Howard League for Penal Reform (2006), The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC: an independent inquiry into the use of physical restraint, solitary conﬁnement and forcible strip searching of children in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes. London. The Howard League for Penal Reform. The Howard League for Penal Reform (2009), letter to Ofsted chief executive in response to the inspection report of Medway Secure Training Centre, 21 December 2009, available at http://www.howardleague.org/ﬁleadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Press_2010/Ofsted_Letter_Dec_09.pdf

Memorandum submitted by the Governors of Heaton Manor School, Newcastle upon Tyne It is felt that the new inspection regime is better and takes a more holistic view of the school, not just driven by exam results. We would not be happy to go back to the previous system. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Newcastle College Group Executive Summary In responding to the points included in the inquiry into the role and performance of OFSTED, Newcastle College Group (NCG) concludes that the inspection system as designed is no longer ﬁt for purpose. The purpose of inspection should be to improve the quality of education and training and raise levels of achievement where appropriate standards are not delivered. Inspection in successful organisations is a process which disrupts business continuity and adds little value. For the many providers in the sector inspection is a costly and time consuming exercise which serves only to validate the providers own judgement of performance. Other, more credible, approaches can be shown to have greater impact on underperforming providers than an overly-bureaucratic data driven inspection regime. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w43

The quality and standard of team membership is not consistent and therefore the robustness of the inspection process in the future cannot be assured. OFSTED has expanded its remit to include other inspectorates, and in some matters have become enforcers in areas where it lacks confidence and credibility. Many providers would benefit from having the burden of inspection removed, to operate with greater autonomy and to work within a defined accountability mechanism. The production of the annual self-assessment report is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Providers should be released from this to focus on running successful educational, training and employability organisations OFSTED has a role, with other agencies, to review and reduce the complex accountability arrangements operating across the sector and to replace them with an appropriate accountability mechanism which will support the move towards greater autonomy and self-regulation.

Introduction Newcastle College Group Following a successful merger and acquisitions strategy which began in 2007, Newcastle College Group (NCG) has grown out of Newcastle College to become a £170 million organisation which serves 75,000 learners and customers annually at over 100 delivery locations; it is now one of the largest educational, training and employability organisations in the UK. NCG comprises three Divisions: Newcastle College, Skelmersdale & Ormskirk College and Intraining. Its head ofﬁce and Group/Shared Services Division is based in Newcastle upon Tyne. Newcastle College is one of the most successful colleges in the country, offering a diverse range of academic, vocational, work based and employer training courses ranging from entry level to post-graduate qualiﬁcations. It is one of the largest providers of Higher Education in the FE sector. Newcastle College was graded Outstanding by OFSTED in May 2004 and June 2008. Skelmersdale & Ormskirk College merged with Newcastle College in 2007. In 2006 Skelmersdale & Ormskirk College was graded Inadequate by OFSTED. Newcastle College and Skelmersdale & Ormskirk College were graded Outstanding by OFSTED, in every category and every sub category, in June 2008. Intraining was formed in March 2008, following the rebranding of the business acquired from Carter & Carter Group plc and the integration of TWL Training Ltd. Focusing upon delivering Work Based Learning and Welfare to Work contracts nationwide. It was graded Outstanding by OFSTED in June 2009.

Mission NCG’s mission is to develop people through learning and achievement for the benefit of themselves, society and the economy. Our objectives are to: — put the needs of the learner and customer first; — innovate and support excellence in learning and employability; — promote diversity and social mobility; — value, involve and invest in our staff; — foster strong partnerships with stakeholders and communities; and — secure our future through strategic investment and profitability. Our focus is on meeting national and regional education, skills and employability needs for individuals and the skills priorities of employers in line with Government agendas.

The Role and Performance of Ofsted What the Purpose of Inspection should be 1. The inspection system is designed to provide objective and dispassionate reports that include judgements and recommendations which providers should use to improve their provision and achievement. Many providers have demonstrated that they are more than capable of making sound judgements on their own performance and, where this is the case, inspection has become no more than a costly self validation exercise. The process of inspection should establish where providers have the systems and processes in place to maintain appropriate standards over time and the capacity and capability to self-regulate to release them from further inspection. 2. The purpose of inspection should be to improve the quality of education and training and raise levels of achievement where appropriate standards are not delivered.

The Impact of the Inspection Process on School/College Improvement 3. Inspection for some providers can be a catalyst for improvement. However, for many failing providers inspection fails to drive the transformational change which is required to address underperformance. Failing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Education Committee: Evidence

providers would fair better by being “shown the way” by successful providers who know the challenges, are current and credible and can provide the type of meaningful support which can help to drive up standards. Other, more credible, approaches can be shown to have greater impact on underperforming providers than an overly-bureaucratic data driven inspection regime. NCG has provided coaching, mentoring support and work shadowing opportunities to management teams from providers across the sector with much success. The acquisition of Skelmersdale and Ormskirk College demonstrated NCGs ability to transform a failing provider in a very short time frame where interventions and inspection regimes had previously failed. 4. Outstanding providers do not need OFSTED inspection. They know they are good and what they need to do to stay that way. Providers with proven track records are capable of monitoring and maintaining high standards of performance and self regulation. For the many providers in the sector inspection is a costly and time consuming exercise which serves only to validate the providers own judgement of performance. 5. The commitment in time and resources to produce a robust set of judgements for the annual self assessment report to inform inspection activity is considerable. For many annual self-assessment is a compliance process which fails to drive significant and timely improvements. For all providers the self- assessment report presents a year end snapshot, which needs regular updating throughout the year to maintain currency. Across NCG sophisticated processes and reporting tools drive business performance using real time information to drive performance to deliver required levels of performance. Successful providers are clear about the measures which need to be monitored to deliver success; they should not be hampered by unnecessarily bureaucratic contractual requirements. The production of the self-assessment report is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Providers should be released from this to focus on running successful educational, training and employability organisations. 6. Newcastle College was inspected in 2004 and graded Outstanding by OFSTED. Whilst the annual self assessment judgements and performance data confirmed a strengthening of this position Newcastle College was subjected to a lengthy and highly resourced inspection in 2008. Similarly under the stewardship of NCG, Intraining was inspected in 2009 and graded Outstanding. At this time five inspections were conducted over a two week time period. One inspection alone involved 4,500 miles travelled, 640 observed or interviewed sessions, 16 inspectors. The other four inspections involved 16 inspectors, 320 observed or interviewed sessions, 4,000 miles travelled. In total, 8,500 miles travelled, 240 inspection days, almost 1000 observed or interviewed sessions. Inspection of successful providers on this size and scale is a process which is hugely disruptive to business continuity and adds little value. Whilst the national recognition of outstanding performance is welcomed the impact of inspection on the core business is significant. 7. Similar bodies carry out the same function as OFSTED elsewhere in the UK; ESTYN in Wales, Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) in Northern Ireland. An organisation such as Intraining is subjected to monitoring and inspection at least every month, each time having to update a range of documents including SARs, QAQs, PDPs. In the period June to July 2010 Intraining was involved in 14 inspections.

The Performance of OFSTED in Carrying out its Work 8. Over time tensions between OFSTED and other agencies relating to methodologies and measurements have become apparent. The introduction of the LSC Framework for Excellence introduced sets of key performance indicators similar to measures embedded in the Common Inspection Framework. Whilst the vision was a fully integrated approach to measuring performance the reality is duplication of measurement in a number of areas. 9. In areas where OFSTED is subcontracted by funding bodies, for example DWP, conﬂicting methodologies add to the inspection burden placed on the provider. The DWP QAQ and the Merlin Standard duplicate much that is measured by OFSTED.

The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the OFSTED Inspection Process 10. As OFSTED’s remit has expanded, so has its reliance on commissioned private contractors whose inconsistencies risk undermining quality assurance and destroying a reputation for excellence synonymous with HMI. The quality and standard of team membership is not consistent and therefore the robustness of the inspection process in the future cannot be assured.

The Weight Given to Different Factors within the Inspection Process 11. Numerical data carries the heaviest weighting and drives the inspection process and outcomes. Less weighting applies to other central themes including teaching, training and learning. The increased focus on data and the declining interest in what is happening in the core functions does not support failing providers to improve their practice.

Whether Inspection of all Organisations, Settings and Services to Support Children’s/Young People and Adult Learning and Welfare is Best Conducted by a Single Inspectorate 12. OFSTED has expanded its remit to include other inspectorates, and in some matters have become enforcers in areas where it lacks conﬁdence and credibility. For example the interpretation of safeguarding cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w45

requirements by teams with limited training has resulted in unreasonable and unrealistic recommendations being made. As the remit has widened OFSTED’s ability to respond appropriately suggests that a single inspectorate is not the solution.

The Role of OFSTED in Providing an Accountability Mechanism for Schools and Colleges Operating with Greater Autonomy 13. Many providers would beneﬁt from having the burden of inspection removed, to operate with greater autonomy and to work within a deﬁned accountability mechanism. However in order to reduce the burden on providers the multiple levels of oversight, monitoring and inspection across the sector need to be reviewed, rationalised and co-ordinated. OFSTED has a role, with other agencies, to review and reduce the complex accountability arrangements operating across the sector and to replace them with an appropriate accountability mechanism which will support the move towards greater autonomy and self-regulation. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the British Humanist Association About the British Humanist Association The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the national charity representing and supporting the non-religious and campaigning for an end to religious privilege and discrimination based on religion or belief. Committed to human rights, democracy, equality and mutual respect, the BHA works for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech. Our education policies arise out of humanist principles and our concern for the common good and community cohesion, as well as our awareness of the needs of non-religious people and experience of working with members of religious groups. The BHA is a respected and active member of many organisations working in the area of education and always responds to every relevant Government consultation on education. The BHA also provides resources lists and materials to help teachers and advisers, and advice to a wide range of individual enquirers, including parents, governors, students, teachers, teacher trainers, and academics.

Executive summary 1. The BHA has particular concerns about “faith schools” and believes that Ofsted should address these much more directly in its Section 5 and subject inspections. 2. Research demonstrates that community cohesion and equality of opportunity are frequently hampered by the discriminatory policies of “faith schools”. We therefore strongly support inspection judgements in these areas and would urge a review to ensure that the criteria used are sufﬁcient. The BHA also believes that “faith schools” frequently struggle to provide objective religious education (RE) and personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education and would support more rigorous inspection processes for these subjects.

CommunityCohesion 3. The BHA strongly supports Ofsted’s duty to report on the contribution made by schools to community cohesion, which commenced in September 2008, and would vigorously oppose any attempt to remove it. This inspection judgement is particularly important in relation to “faith schools”, whose populations tend to be far from representative of their local communities. 4. Many “faith schools” can discriminate against all pupils and staff on religious grounds, in numerous cases excluding the majority of people who live or work in that area. These “faith schools” are also free to teach their own syllabus of Religious Education (RE), which is not required to cover other religions and beliefs. 5. As the Ofsted guidance says, “where the pupil population is less diverse or predominantly of one socioeconomic, ethnic, faith or non-faith background, more will need to be done to provide opportunities for interaction between children and young people from different backgrounds.”16This interaction is vital for building strong communities with shared values, yet it is often undermined by highly discriminatory admissions and employment policies and narrow RE. 6. The Runnymede Trust’s Right to Divide Report? found that “faith schools are much more effective at educating for a single vision than they are at opening dialogue about a shared vision”.17 Research by other academics has supported the view that “faith schools” may have a negative impact on community cohesion. 16 Inspecting maintained schools’ duty to promote community cohesion: guidance for inspectors, Ofsted, February 2009 17 Right to Divide?: Faith schools and community cohesion, Rob Berkley, Runnymede Trust, 2008 http://www.runnymedetrust.org/ uploads/publications/pdfs/RightToDivide-2008.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w46 Education Committee: Evidence

Professor Ted Cantle, author of a report into community relations in Blackburn, described religious schools as “automatically a source of division” in the town.18 7. Schools have a vital role in building strong, dynamic communities. It is therefore of the utmost importance the Ofsted continues to evaluate how well “faith schools” contribute to community cohesion. Indeed, we would urge a review of whether the criteria used by Ofsted in judging schools’ contributions to community cohesion are sufﬁcient. While school linking projects and classroom discussions of diversity are commendable, inspectors should also consider the impact on cohesion of discriminatory admissions and biased RE lessons. 8. We would also support proposals, made by organisations such as the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), to link criteria related to the promotion of community cohesion to the level of autonomy granted to schools.

Equality ofOpportunity 9. The BHA also strongly supports Ofsted’s duty to report on how effectively schools promote equality of opportunity and eliminate discrimination. Again, this inspection judgement is particularly important in relation to “faith schools”, who face particular challenges in relation to equality and discrimination. 10. A survey by Stonewall found that 75% of young gay people in “faith schools” experience homophobic bullying—compared with 65% in community schools—and are signiﬁcantly less likely than pupils in other schools to tell someone about it. Only 4% of gay pupils felt able to tell their local religious leaders about bullying.19The same report found 47% of young gay people who attended “faith schools” disagreed that their school is an “accepting, tolerant place where they feel welcome”. This compares with 35% of young gay people in community schools. 11. Other concerns have been raised about the promotion of gender equality in “faith schools”. The Right to Divide? report found that “there are some particular challenges that exist for faith schools in confronting gender inequalities that exist within faith traditions.” Those “faith schools” whose religious views strongly advocate traditional gender roles and family structures may particularly struggle in this regard. 12. A further obstacle to eliminating discrimination is the experience of religious minorities within “faith schools”. Many VA “faith schools”, while admitting the vast majority of pupils on the basis of their parents’ adherence to its religion, admit a small number of children from other religious and non-religious backgrounds. Little is known about the experiences of these pupils, such as how their own beliefs are presented in RE lessons and whether real efforts are made by the school to include them. 13. For these reasons, it is the BHA’s view that the evaluation of schools’ effectiveness in promoting equality of opportunity and eliminating discrimination should be an integral part of the inspection process.

Religious Education 14. It has long been the BHA’s view that RE in VA “faith schools” should be subject to the same Ofsted inspection arrangements as in other schools. 15. VA schools with a religious character are not obliged to follow the locally agreed syllabus and instead can teach RE in accordance with the religion of the school. It is for the governing body of the schools, rather than Ofsted, to ensure that their RE is inspected under Section 48 of the Education Act 2005. The governing body may choose any person to conduct the inspection, although in practice this is usually the education department of the school’s diocesan authority. 16. The BHA has particular concerns about these arrangements. RE in such schools is often confessional in nature, with the aim of instructing children in the teachings of the school’s religion rather than empowering them to critically engage with a range of beliefs. The Right to Divide? report found that “By not engaging with locally agreed [RE] syllabuses or agreeing to teach from a non-statutory framework, faith schools have missed an opportunity to share their expertise more widely, and to capitalize on their capacity to support learning about faith, faith diversity and the role of faith in society.”20 17. RE in these schools rarely explores other religions in any academically rigorous way and will almost certainly not include exploring non-religious views. Ethical issues such as abortion or euthanasia are usually approached explicitly from a religious perspective, which may not give pupils a balanced view. It is unlikely that these schools will ever be made aware of these problems while the provision of RE is inspected only by the diocesan authority. 18. RE is viewed by most VA “faith schools” as fundamental to the education they provide. Many Roman Catholic schools, for example, describe the subject as the “core of the core curriculum”. The BHA believes it 18 Comment reported in “Cantle report: Blackburn a divided town”, Lancashire Telegraph, May 8 2009 http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/4351852.Cantle_report__Blackburn_a_divided_town 19 School Report: The experiences of young gay people in Britain's schools, Stonewall, 2007 http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report.pdf 20 Right to Divide?: Faith schools and community cohesion, Rob Berkley, Runnymede Trust, 2008 http://www.runnymedetrust.org/ uploads/publications/pdfs/RightToDivide-2008.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w47

to be an unacceptable anomaly that the teaching of a subject regarded as so essential by the schools themselves is not evaluated impartially by independent inspectors. 19. Subject inspections are used to feed into Ofsted’s judgements about particular subjects and form the basis, in part, for Ofsted’s long reports on the curriculum. However, Oftsed’s current picture of the teaching of RE is necessarily incomplete since it automatically excludes the 22% of primary schools and 16% of secondary schools which are VA “faith schools”. 20. As Ofsted notes, schools and colleges which have had subject inspections in the past have generally been very positive about them. The BHA believes that “faith schools” and their pupils can only beneﬁt from being subject to the same inspection arrangements as other maintained schools.

Inspection of Academies 21. The Secretary of State for Education has announced that schools previously judged outstanding will no longer be subject to routine school inspection. It is the BHA’s view that all Academies and free schools should be inspected at least every three years, as other schools are. 22. Unlike maintained “faith schools” religious Academies do not have to follow the national curriculum, are not covered by general education law and are outside local authority control. They are therefore removed from the moderating inﬂuence of the state and local community. There is still great uncertainty as to how religious Academies and free schools will use these freedoms. 23. There is a real risk that religious Academies and free schools will choose to teach a narrow, religiously restrictive curriculum. There are particular concerns about the teaching of creationism, for example. 24. Speaking to the Education Committee shortly after the Bill had received royal assent, the Secretary of State Michael Gove said that “extremist groups” would not be allowed to run schools and that creationism would not be allowed to be taught in Academies and free schools. However, there is nothing in the Academies Act or the model funding agreement to prevent this. 25. These serious concerns make it all the more important that Academies are subject to the same, if not more stringent, inspection regimes as maintained schools.

Personal, Social, Health and Economic education 26. Because PSHE is not a statutory subject, “faith schools” are free to teach it from an overtly religious perspective. The BHA is particularly concerned that the SRE components—if they are covered at all—may be taught in ways that are homophobic and gender discriminatory or that otherwise violate principles of human rights. 27. The SRE programmes of study in “faith schools” are usually chosen by the diocesan authority and vary widely in quality. Some programmes are published by third party organisations, such as the “This is My Body” programme for primary schools in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lancaster, which is produced by the Society for the Protection Unborn Child (SPUC). 28. Other examples include the “Evaluate: Informing Choice” programme, published by anti-abortion group CARE (who claim it has been studied by 64,000 students so far), and the Right to Life Educational Trust’s teaching packs which have been sent to every “faith school” in the country. 29. The BHA also has concerns about the kinds of external visitors which are invited to give presentation to pupils as part of SRE lessons. Anti-abortion groups such as SPUC and Life regularly visit schools (both religious and non-religious) to deliver presentations on abortion, for example. 30. The BHA believes it is right that pupils should have the opportunity to explore a range of religious and non-religious perspectives on sex and relationships. However, such views should never be allowed to interfere with pupils’ entitlement to objective and impartial information. As the recently published draft guidance on PSHE from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) states, “Teaching should help pupils and students to distinguish between facts and opinions.”21 31. The draft government guidance on SRE issued in January 2010 explicitly acknowledged the tension involved in taking account of “the religious character of the school while maintaining children and young people’s need for and entitlement to a comprehensive SRE programme”22. In light of the concerns described above, it is the BHA’s view that Ofsted guidance should require inspectors to judge how effectively “faith schools” resolve this tension. October 2010

21 Public health draft guidance: School, college and community-based personal, social, health and economic education focusing on sex and relationships and alcohol education, NICE, 2010 http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11673/49240/49240.pdf 22 Sex and relationships guidance to schools, DCSF, issued for consultation January 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Kidsunlimited

1. kidsunlimited has contact with Ofsted solely as the regulator of Early Years Education and Childcare, The company is of course aware that Ofsted’s remit is very much broader than this, but we have felt it right to conﬁne our remarks to those areas where we have direct experience. The questions therefore which concern school improvement, though important, are beyond our immediate expertise.

ThePurpose ofInspection

2. Inspection is, from our point of view, necessarily an aspect of regulation. Its prime purpose, therefore, is to check that minimum standards of acceptability, as set down in the Children Act 2004, its amendment in the Children Act 2006 and in Every Child Matters, are met, and to inform action where they are not met. Through public reporting, inspection provides assurance to parents and others that children are safe, happy, healthy, purposefully involved, and developing as they should across the six areas of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). However, we believe that Ofsted has rightly interpreted its remit more broadly than this. Inspection and the reporting of inspection should lead to improvement, both by informing action in the particular settings and across the system, by stimulating public debate and informing policy development. More broadly still, inspection can and should assist improvement by adding to the corpus of reference amongst professional practitioners and by helping to deﬁne best practice.

ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarrying out itsWork

3. Overall, our view is that Ofsted has been a far more effective instrument for promoting improvement in Early Years and Childcare than the system which preceded it. Ofsted has a large and complex remit, and its regulatory task is very large. Inevitably, there have been some aspects of its performance which have occasionally given us some cause for concern, but any such concerns need to be set against our general view that it provides an authoritative and broadly secure regulatory oversight that commands public conﬁdence and sets essential benchmarks for our industry. The Ofsted grade is an indispensable yardstick for our company and all our competitors; we do not always agree with the grade, and we think there is too much variability in judgements, but we always think that the grade is vitally important. The public acknowledgement of quality by an esteemed national body, as well as informing parents, adds an important element of aspiration to our work as a company, and to the work of key individuals, notably our nursery managers. A judgement of “good” or “outstanding” is a real cause of rejoicing and ensures that quality is always at the centre of our concerns.

4. The authoritative sanction of Ofsted is, therefore, a central focus and driving force for our work and our progress as a company. Almost equally inﬂuential and authoritative are Ofsted’s publications, such as the summary report issued in 2008; the 20 questions for proprietors are the basis of much of our training and of our quality assurance, alongside the Framework itself.

5. Our detailed contacts with Ofsted are, of course, very frequent. At the level of regional liaison, they work very well, and our contacts with the most senior management, though much less frequent, are invariably conducted with impeccable professional courtesy and in a reasonable spirit. This exemplary approach does not always percolate down to the level of the inspectors who actually conduct the visits. According to our database, 45 visits have been conducted during the current cycle. In only two instances have we lodged a formal complaint; in one of those instances, the inspection was declared null and void, because of potential connection on the part of one of the inspectors; in the other, a discrepancy of evidence between the inspector and the nursery staff could not be resolved, and the complaint was not upheld. However, the matter was dealt with in a thorough and courteous manner (Annex A).

6. This does not seem to us in itself to be evidence of unacceptable performance: two complaints from 45 inspections is surely reasonable. However, as we indicate below, we found a number of judgements debatable, or even idiosyncratic. There are other aspects of Ofsted’s performance which cause us some difficulty. For example, eight of our settings were not inspected within the three-year deadline (Annex B). Moreover, it is sometimes difficult when contacting the administration offices to find an official sufficiently knowledgeable to deal with the query. In these ways and others, Ofsted gives the impression of an organisation struggling to meet its targets, with perhaps too large and complex a remit.

TheConsistency andQuality ofInspectionTeams in the OfstedInspectionProcess

7. On this, the only reasonable reply at this stage is, surely, wait and see. At the time of writing, the transfer of responsibility to the privatised inspection providers is not yet a month old. We are not aware of any immediate dislocation in the system, though we hear disquieting rumours that one of the providers is experiencing some difﬁculty. At present, the hope must be that Ofsted is more effective in exercising regulatory authority over the providers than it always was as a direct employer of inspectors. We have already referred to the fact that the inspections are behind schedule. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w49

8. We also regret to have to point to considerable variations in judgement. These have by no means always been to our disadvantage; as often as not, we believe that our nurseries have been graded too generously. In a sense, this is more difﬁcult to deal with, because it is unpredictable, than a consistently over-severe evaluation. The notion of consistency between “teams” does not of course necessarily apply where visits may be carried out by a single inspector. In these cases in particular we have found, not only broad discrepancies with our own judgements, but also rather improbable changes between visits to the same nursery by different inspectors. Ofsted has certainly not, in our view, cracked the problem of achieving consistency of judgements nationally; we do not of course in any way suggest that quality assurance of a dispersed ﬁeld force is an easy or trivial matter. We do, though, look for some improvement here. 9. Ofsted has, rightly of course, a Code of Conduct which all inspectors should follow. We have found that individuals tend to interpret it in rather different ways. Most engage with our staff in a courteous and professional way; some are more aloof and authoritarian. A few go so far as to make acerbic comments about nursery chains, or to refuse to speak to our staff. This is not merely disquieting for our employees; it reduces the effectiveness of the inspection by eliminating opportunities for professional dialogue.

TheWeightGiven toDifferentFactorsWithin theInspectionProcess 10. In broad terms, we have no quarrel with this. The elements included in the framework, we feel, reflect very well the issues that are likely to concern most parents and decision-makers at all levels. More emphasis has been given to safeguarding in recent years and months, but this perhaps inevitably reflects well-publicised concerns. On balance we take a positive view of that increased emphasis; we do, however, wish to continue to see our nurseries as educational organisations. We are occasionally troubled by the interpretation of “Working in Partnership with Others”, though we fully recognise the importance of the criterion. We merely question whether it is reasonable to downgrade a nursery for not making contact with a school where the school is some distance away and the logistical challenges are likely to outweigh the potential benefits.

Whether theInspection of allOrganisations,Settings andServices toSupportChildren’s Learning andWelfare isBestConducted by a Single Inspectorate 11. This is a matter about which we have very significant concerns. The remit of Ofsted has grown very rapidly over the last decade and more, causing the organisation to go through repeated changes in size and shape. Exposure to constant change, coupled with regular (and inevitable) constraints on resources, is inevitably traumatic. In many ways, Ofsted appears to us to be an organisation exhibiting significant stress, with a top management struggling to cope with the whole range of issues within its remit and with the difficult problem of managing a dispersed and diverse workforce with a view to achieving consistency. As will be seen from what we have written above, we are not wholly convinced that Ofsted has quality assurance systems of the necessary power to bring about success in this task, or that any singe organisation could have. There is, therefore, an argument for rationalizing its remit.

Recommendations 12. 12.1 That Ofsted should bear heavily on the private inspection providers to achieve signiﬁcantly enhanced consistency in the behaviour and judgement of inspectors countrywide; in particular that it give adequate attention to recruitment and training. 12.2 That the breadth of Ofsted’s remit should be re-considered. Some thought might, for example, be given to splitting off its purely schools functions from other aspects of the current remit. 12.3 That Ofsted should make every effort to complete the current inspection cycle and to make up the existing backlog of inspections. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Education Committee: Evidence

Annex A Inspection date Nursery Ofsted Reference Nature of complaint

03/02/10 Milton Park CAS124254 Kidsunlimited considered that one of the inspectors potentially had a conflict of interest as they unsuccessfully applied for a job with Kidsunlimited;evidence presented at the end of the inspection was both incorrect and insufficient to substantiate the outcome of the report; evidence presented by the inspectors was contradictory and did not match the Ofsted criteria for inadequate judgements; the opportunity to present written evidence and information to support the actions and results of the nursery care and education was denied. Ofsted Investigation Outcome Due to an inspector’s conflict of interest the inspection was declared ‘null and void’ and other issues to be considered as part of a re-inspection. Milton Park was then reinspected 21/07/10 and graded as Outstanding. 08/10/09 Cambridge 221633, letter Concerns were raised regarding the way the inspection was Science Park dated 23/10/09 conducted. This complaint was not upheld. 0910–173

Annex B Period between inspections/since last inspection

Inspection * taken from 1st August following URN Nursery Date Type date of previous inspection

Ladbroke Grove 17/07/06 Care & Ed 3 years 7 months Ladbroke Grove 23/03/10 EYFS Lynda Ellis 13/12/05 Care & Ed 3 years 4 months 300748 Lynda Ellis 30/12/09 EYFS Macintosh 16/02/06 Care & Ed 3 years 3 months Macintosh 09/11/09 EYFS EY225148 North Cheam 23/11/06 Care & Ed 3 years 1 month EY336120 North Cheam 20/09/10 EYFS Stourton 23/02/04 Old 3 years 3 months 319379 Stourton 07/11/07 Care & Ed Summerﬁelds 04/12/03 Old 3 years 1 month 305347 Summerﬁelds 26/09/07 Care & Ed Wolfson 06/07/05 Care & Ed 3 years 2 months EY301066 Wolfson 15/10/08 EYFS Woodlands 09/03/04 Old 3 years 7 months 256850 Woodlands 11/03/08 Care & Ed

Memorandum submitted by Barnardo’s 1. What thePurposes ofInspectionShould be (Relating notOnly toSchools but to all Organisations,Settings andServicesUnder Ofsted'sRemit) Inspection is about the maintenance and improvement of agreed service standards measured by key performance indicators. Any inspection of such should not impede the delivery of that service nor be overly bureaucratic or burdensome by taking individuals off task for too long. Inspections could focus on speciﬁc areas or be whole service speciﬁc as required whilst monitoring key performance indicators. The length and weight of inspection should be proportionate to these.

2. TheImpact of theInspectionProcess onSchoolImprovement There is a belief that the rigor of school improvement is presently underpinned and focussed by the current rigid framework of inspection but I believe good school leaders use key indicators like attendance, exam results, NEET ﬁgures etc to ensure their schools constantly improve. I also believe schools would welcome a less proscribed approach to judgements which compel all schools regardless of designation to conform to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w51

similar rigid judgements. If this were so, leaders would have the choice to be more creative and innovative in securing good outcomes for pupils. The process of gathering, preparing updating, writing and monitoring evidence for the judgements within the current framework has a huge impact on the Head teacher and senior management time. I do not believe that this justiﬁes the outcomes of inspection and actually takes away time that could be used for real school development.

3. The Performance of Ofsted in Carrying out its Work My experience has been that Ofsted carries out its work well

4. TheConsistency andQuality ofInspectionTeams in the OfstedInspectionProcess My experience has been that the teams are consistent but other head Teachers and Principals have reported to me differently

5. TheWeightGiven toDifferentFactorsWithin theInspectionProcess The use of limiting factors is contentious and may lead to overall judgements being misleading. Parents, carers and Local Authorities may only take in headlines rather than read whole ofsted reports. A “good” judgement for Equality and Diversity would limit an overall inspection judgement for a care inspection of boarding provision to “good” even if in every other instance the judgements were outstanding.

6. WhetherInspection of allOrganisations,Settings andServices toSupportChildren's Learning andWelfare isBestConducted by aSingleInspectorate Yes, to provide dialogue and consistency.

7. The Role of Ofsted in Providing an AccountabilityMechanism forSchoolsOperating with GreaterAutonomy All bodies responsible for young people need to be accountable and I believe under whichever umbrella they are set up (Academy, independent etc) they need to have the same accountability. This may mean a slightly diluted/monitoring role for Ofsted but data collection should direct them. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Essex County Council Early Years and Childcare 1. What thePurposes ofInspectionShould be (Relating notOnly toSchools but to all Organisations,Settings and Services Under Ofsted’sRemit) To ensure children are safe, well cared for by suitable people, that minimum standards are met by providers, that the users/public have conﬁdence in providers and that they are suitable and meeting the minimum standards. That children receive the best possible care and learning environment possible. Consistent framework which ensures that all settings inspected are challenged to improve.

2. TheImpact of theInspectionProcess onSchoolImprovement Inspection should identify what needs to be done to bring about improvement, what is done well and how the standards are met. It should ensure that good schools do not get complacent. It should give parents a clear understanding of standards within the school.

3. The Performance of Ofsted inCarrying out itsWork Within EY inspections we have seen great variation between individual inspectors and a lack of consistency which has resulted in some settings being given an inadequate judgement and an action by one inspector and another inspector allowing the setting time to address the issue before the end of the inspection and therefore getting a satisfactory/ good judgement. Teams must have experience and specialism, in many cases EY settings on school sites have been inspected by school inspectors, often not experienced in Early Years. Settings on school sites have often reported to the LA that they feel that they were inspected as an add on, and have felt cheated by the process and unable, sometimes due to very short time inspectors are within the setting, to showcase their setting to the inspector. Often recommendations are not taken from the EYFS Statutory framework. The range of documentation available to support practitioners in what Ofsted are looking for has been really beneﬁcial to settings. The evaluation schedule for school inspections does not mention out of school provision and therefore it is not surprising that the vast majority do not factor these settings into their inspection programme. As schools must ensure the core offer is met it is important that inspectors should also be checking this provision for quality. Unfortunately regular meetings with EY inspectors and the LA are no longer taking place, these were a valuable forum to exchange skills, knowledge and information, we feel that these have been a great loss and would like to see these reinstated. When as a LA we have had to make a complaint about a setting to Ofsted, we have sometimes found that these are not taken seriously. Also we have concerns that cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Education Committee: Evidence

when a setting moves to a school site, the inspection is under the timeframe of the school—which could mean a setting has a new registration, and consequently no last inspection report available for parents, and may have to wait for 3 years or more to be inspected.

4. The Consistency and Quality ofInspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process

As above there has been great consistency between EY inspections especially when a setting is inspected by a school inspector. Also the length of time spent in settings is often very different, and this can affect the ﬁnal judgement when not all areas are looked at.

5. The WeightGiven to Different Factors Within the InspectionProcess

When an EY setting has children under 3 years old, there is too little focus within the report on outcomes and provision speciﬁcally for this age group.

6. WhetherInspection of allOrganisations,Settings andServices toSupportChildren’s Learning andWelfare isBestConducted by a Single Inspectorate

As long as specialism is kept, eg EY inspectors.

7. TheRole of Ofsted inProviding anAccountabilityMechanism forSchoolsOperatingWith GreaterAutonomy

Ofsted need to ensure that children are receiving high quality care and education. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Independent Association of Prep Schools (IAPS)

1. ThePurpose ofInspection

The purpose of inspection should be two-fold: (a) to monitor compliance with regulation; and (b) to promote school improvement. These are two distinct functions which may and, IAPS believes, should be performed separately in a school inspection model.

2. Impact ofInspectionProcess onSchoolImprovement

Inspection, in its broadest sense, if delivered effectively, can be a central tool for school improvement. However, IAPS would argue that, because monitoring compliance and school improvement are very different exercises, these should be undertaken separately. Whilst IAPS recognises the need for compliance to be monitored and fully supports this as a mandatory activity, it would argue that schools should be able to commission a school improvement visit to suit their individual needs both in respect of focus and timing.

3. WeightGiven toFactors inInspectionProcess

Inspection as a vehicle for monitoring compliance should be mandatory and a three-year cycle should be sufﬁcient to achieve this. IAPS believes that the inspection should take the form of a compliance audit, supported by a data -rich and more focused SEF submitted in advance, and should normally require just one inspector for one day. Assuming that a school’s compliance audit is satisfactorily completed, school improvement should carry more weight, although IAPS would argue it should be within the gift of the school to identify, through its own self evaluation, what form this should take and when it should take place. IAPS does not regard school improvement as optional and would seek to make investment in this an expectation of membership; however, it believes that, to impose a model and cycle of school improvement may detract from its effectiveness.

4. Consistency ofQuality

IAPS has evidence that there are inconsistent judgements made by inspectors and some schools ﬁnd themselves wanting to challenge the grade boundaries. To create a model where one could guarantee consistency of judgement would be complex and hugely expensive. IAPS proposes that, for the model of compliance audit outlined above, there should be no qualitative grades. Instead, like an MOT for a car, the school either passes or fails. A benchmark should be set, above which schools would be deemed to be satisfactory and below which they would trigger a much fuller diagnostic inspection at their own cost. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w53

5. Inspection of allOrganisations by aSingleInspectorate IAPS believes strongly in the value of choice. It would support its members in choosing a recognised inspectorate of their choice, suited to their individual requirements. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Mr and Mrs Dominic Williams 1. We are parents of two girls, both now in secondary school. In this submission, we draw on our experience of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, a body inspected by Ofsted. We then go on to address the wider questions raised by the Select Committee about Ofsted’s role. In so doing, we are able to draw on previous experience of Ofsted as an inspector of state schools. We have also taken the trouble to read a wider range material relating to the inspections process. 2. Although the relevant government department is now the Department for Education, the events we outline occurred prior to May 2010, so we refer throughout to DCSF, the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Recommendations 3. The role of DfE should in future be limited to standard setting. It should not be able to intervene with or direct inspecting bodies. 4. Ofsted should not be responsible for inspecting other inspection bodies. 5. The Independent Schools Inspectorate should be replaced by a genuinely independent body with no conflict of interest. 6. Inspecting bodies should have an explicit duty of care to parents and pupils and should be liable for their negligence. 7. Inspecting bodies should report to school governors, not to DfE, and governors should assume responsibility for compliance with educational and safeguarding standards, including warranting that they have disclosed all relevant information to the inspection team—in the same way as they assume responsibility for the school’s financial affairs. 8. This could mean that inspections were carried out by independent private sector bodies. 9. Complaints about both individual matters and about standards compliance would both be addressed in the first instance to the governors and then to an independent supervisory body (which could be a reformed and fit for purpose Ofsted), which would have the power to take disciplinary action against the school. 10. In order to prevent governors obstructing the process, any complaint to them would be copied to and logged by the independent body which would automatically intervene if the complaint was not resolved within a fixed time limit. 11. All complaints should be dealt with in accordance with the rules of natural justice, in particular both sides should have the right to hear the other side’s case. 12. Any report produced by the independent body would be made publicly available. 13. As is now the case, complainants would have the right to seek judicial review of a decision or to pursue a claim in damages where appropriate. This new system would not impact on their rights.

Our Experience 14. In 2007–08, our daughter was a pupil in Year 7 of North London Collegiate School (NLCS), an independent school for girls. Our daughter’s year at NLCS was ruined by disruptive behaviour, bullying and poor discipline from two girls in her class. The school had admitted the two girls knowing that they had disciplinary problems and they rapidly ran out of control. It started in the first term and worsened during the year, culminating in an incident where the girls urinated on their seats in a lesson—and ultimately one girl was obliged to leave the school. Although the school knew it had problems controlling the two girls, it did not realise that this was having a wider impact on other girls. 15. This behaviour had a corrosive effect on the whole form, but our daughter, coming from a small state school, bore the brunt. It took us some months to realise why she hated school so much, but when we did, we complained to the school. It was clear to us that the school was out of its depth. Senior staff were extremely confident in their ability to manage pupils, but actually were inadequately trained and ill-informed. After we complained, the headmistress had to write to all the parents to find out what else had been going on. Staff were unaware of best practice in anti-bullying policy (as set out by DCSF); we had to tell them what was expected. 16. In particular, the school failed to publish and enforce its anti bullying policy as required. There was an unintentionally comic meeting early on at NLCS in which we asked to see the school’s anti-bullying policy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Education Committee: Evidence

At first a deputy headmistress teacher told us it was in the pupils’ handbook, then that it was in the parents’ handbook, then she eventually remembered it was in the staff handbook in her desk—no one had access to it except staff. We asked why it was not published to parents and another deputy headmistress told us it was because “it could encourage people to think we have a problem”. 17. Meanwhile, while our daughter was there, NLCS was subject to an inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. The inspection took place during the spring term, at the height of the bullying and disruptive behaviour. The report was published in summer 2008 and said that the school complied with all regulations, pastoral care was excellent, staff were well trained, there was no disruptive behaviour or bullying and everything was perfect. The report was materially inaccurate. 18. We made a formal complaint about the report, initially to the chair of the school governors (who refused to discuss the matter) and then to ISI. Neither the school nor ISI has ever disputed that our account of events was essentially correct. The school’s defence (as we discovered from an FOI request) was that “the information given on our website was found by the inspectors to fulfil the regulatory requirements” (ie it was the inspectors’ fault for not spotting the failing). ISI’s defence was that it was only responsible for checking that schools had policies; it made no effect to check whether they were adequately published or enforced. 19. After we complained, ISI made significant changes in its procedures. It has rewritten most of its inspection handbook. It now checks to see policies are being published and implemented. It has also updated its anti bullying requirements and made governors check to see policies are implemented effectively—so our complaint appears to have had some impact. 20. ISI had a second defence—its complaints procedure. It said that our complaint was out of time, because it was made more than six months after the inspection date. However, the report was not published until five months after the inspection and, as we pointed out, it would be difficult for us to complain about a report before it had been written and published. Moreover, ISI reports were published undated; give no contact details for the ISI (not even an address); and make no mention of a complaints procedure. In other words, ISI did not have an adequate procedure for handling complaints. 21. Meanwhile, acting on instructions from DCSF, ISI asked to the school to set out its arrangements for publicising its procedures. After a lengthy delay during which the school took legal advice, it replied in April 2009, saying that the inspection had approved the school’s arrangements at the time and its anti–bullying policy was (now) published on its website—which by then, a year after the ISI inspection, was true. So, again, our actions had led to an improvement in the quality of pastoral care. 22. ISI claimed throughout to be acting under instruction from DCSF. So, from June 2009 to May 2010, we tried to obtain details of the correspondence between ISI and DCSF using an FOI request: — DCSF first denied that any such correspondence existed; we were able to prove this was untrue. — In September 2009, DCSF staff said they were too busy to comply with the FOI statutory deadlines (which require a reply within 20 days) and they were going on holiday. — Next, we made a formal complaint to the department—which then ignored its own published complaints procedure and referred the matter to a senior member of staff who admitted she had known about the problem all along, but had no intention of complying with the Act yet. The complaint was then referred back to the person about whom we were complaining. — In October the department formally declined our request, again contravening the Act. We asked for a review, as the Act allows. The review was organised by the person who made the original decision. — From November 2009 to May 2010 DCSF claimed that the decision was being reviewed by an unknown set of people with an unknown brief who were contacting unknown third parties about unspecified matters and who would reach a decision at some unspecified future point. — Finally in May 2010, we made a follow up request asking for the name(s)of the review panel, the date they were appointed, the third parties they had consulted and so on. — Rather than reply to this request, DCSF released the relevant correspondence between itself and ISI. Perhaps coincidentally, there was a change of government at this time. — The department has not published the information in the list of FOI disclosures on its website, on the grounds that it is not new or of general interest. 23. In another apparent coincidence, in early 2010 we approached a national newspaper with our story. We did not realise that the newspaper had nominated NLCS as its “School of the Year”. The newspaper did not publish our story, but shortly afterwards ISI published a radically improved complaints procedure and the school published an updated and improved anti- bullying policy. 24. However, ISI has refused to amend its inspection report, even though it knows it is materially inaccurate, and the school makes prominent mention of it in its publicity material, knowing it is untrue. 25. So, our experience of ISI reveals not just a single instance of a sloppy inspection, but systematic failings in ISI’s inspection and complaints procedures that were readily apparent to us as laymen but were only addressed after we complained—and refused to let the matter rest. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w55

26. What was Ofsted’s role in driving this improvement in standards? Nothing, as far as we can tell. Although we as laymen could see the deﬁciencies in ISI procedures, Ofsted apparently could not. Moreover, in theory, Ofsted should have been made aware of the problems—both by ISI and DCSF. Yet Ofsted said in its “Annual report on the quality of ISI inspections and reports 2007−08” that it had looked at 21 inspection reports, of which 18 were good and 3 satisfactory. It said “A comprehensive framework and handbook underpin the inspection regime” and “The ISI has good systems for monitoring the quality of its inspections and reports.”

27. Ofsted is the dog that never barked.

28. If this were an isolated occurrence, it would be bad enough. However, it appears that there are a number of occasions where ISI has published a positive report on a school which has subsequently turned out to be dangerously inaccurate. St Benedict’s School, Ealing seems to the most serious recent case, in which ISI has had to withdraw a complimentary report about the school, because it was untrue. However, Ofsted continues to write approving annual reports for ISI. Any qualiﬁcations expressed appear to be reactions to weaknesses revealed by a third party, not by spotted by Ofsted. Something is amiss.

Conclusions 29. The ﬁrst weakness in the inspection system, now well understood, is the excessive concern with process rather than outcomes. Inspections have become a box-ticking exercise rather than focusing on the quality of teaching and pastoral care. This is compounded by the deluge of legislation, standards, advice, best practice, guidance and so on, issuing from government. Standards for the independent sector are generally not statutory (and are weaker than those applied to state sector schools), creating further confusion.

30. The second issue is the overlap in accountability among the various bodies, all of whom can (and do) argue that if they have ticked their own boxes, they are not responsible for anything that goes wrong. In the case of independent schools, there is a direct relationship between DCSF and ISI that excludes Ofsted—so Ofsted can argue that it has carried out its job by looking at a set of inspection reports, even if the ISI has systematic weaknesses.

31. The inspection system also became politicised under the previous government. Instead of being a way of ensuring diverse schools met common standards of quality, it became an instrument to ensure all schools conformed to a rigid policy template. DCSF evidently exercised a great deal of control over Ofsted and ISI on all kinds of matters and appears to have had a decisive role in dealing (or not dealing) with our complaints about ISI procedures. The problem is that civil servants are concerned with general policy, not with individual circumstances; they are ﬂexible and sensitive to opinion; they put departmental loyalty above free ﬂow of information; they are not rewarded for being controversial, forthright or decisive. It is the job of civil servants to cover up and smooth over problems, not to highlight them to the public. These are exactly the wrong characteristics for making a fuss when something has gone wrong and therefore exactly the wrong characteristics for people in charge of a rigorous school inspection system.

32. The inspection bodies also suffer from group think and lack the independence to act as effective scrutineers. The Permanent Secretary of DCSF was the former head of Ofsted. ISI inspections are usually led by former Ofsted inspectors. Ofsted acts both as an inspection body for schools and as an inspection body for other school inspection bodies. Because Ofsted reports on ISI, it means that any criticisms of ISI are also criticisms of Ofsted. It is not hard to see why these bodies instinctively close ranks to protect each other when challenged—and why parents and pupils appear to have a much better track record of bringing weaknesses in schools to light than Ofsted.

33. The situation for ISI is worse because, apart form former Ofsted staff, the inspection teams are largely made up of senior staff from other private schools. They all inspect each other, which must make it very difﬁcult for inspection teams to be impartial. Moreover, it appears that that the ISI is owned and funded by the Independent Schools Council via a levy on members. It is not an independent schools inspectorate, it is an inspectorate of independent schools.

34. There is also an awkward overlap between systematic issues, which are the responsibility of the inspecting bodies, and individual complaints which are a matter for the school and its proprietors or governing body. In reality, the two usually happen in tandem, but, as we discovered, the argument that the inspectorate cannot deal with individual cases is frequently used by them as an excuse for inaction. Equally, governors argue (as they did in our case) that if they have passed an inspection, their actions in a particular case are immune from challenge. This is likely to cause particular problems with new types of schools, if they are perceived as publicly accountable but actually are self governing.

35. There is also a great lack of clarity about the Freedom of Information Act and how it applies to the various bodies.

36. It is not at all clear what benefit there is in having such an elaborate and costly public sector inspection apparatus that is run for the benefit of government, not for the benefit of parents and pupils. It failed us, as it has failed many parents and children. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Education Committee: Evidence

Recommendations 37. The role of DfE should in future be limited to standard setting. It should not be able to intervene with or direct inspecting bodies. 38. Ofsted should not be responsible for inspecting other inspection bodies. 39. The Independent Schools Inspectorate should be replaced by a genuinely independent body with no conflict of interest. 40. Inspecting bodies should have an explicit duty of care to parents and pupils and should be liable for their negligence. 41. Inspecting bodies should report to school governors, not to DfE, and governors should assume responsibility for compliance with educational and safeguarding standards, including warranting that they have disclosed all relevant information to the inspection team—in the same way as they assume responsibility for the school’s financial affairs. 42. This could mean that inspections were carried out by independent private sector bodies. 43. Complaints about both individual matters and about standards compliance would both be addressed in the first instance to the governors and then to an independent supervisory body (which could be a reformed and fit for purpose Ofsted), which would have the power to take disciplinary action against the school. 44. In order to prevent governors obstructing the process, any complaint to them would be copied to and logged by the independent body which would automatically intervene if the complaint was not resolved within a fixed time limit. 45. All complaints should be dealt with in accordance with the rules of natural justice, in particular both sides should have the right to hear the other side’s case. 46. Any report produced by the independent body would be made publicly available. 47. As is now the case, complainants would have the right to seek judicial review of a decision or to pursue a claim in damages where appropriate. This new system would not impact on their rights. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by National Primary Heads 1. NPH are totally committed to the public accountability of primary schools and the need to demonstrate their success in educating the children of their school community. 2. NPH oppose the current ineffective approach of OFSTED and will actively campaign to replace it with a fairer, more balanced and cost effective means of ensuring the efficient and compassionate running of our schools. 3. NPH support the findings of the OECD report, in May 2008, which stated that preparing for inspections created unnecessary paperwork and distraction and should be replaced with more systematic self evaluation and less of the one off snapshots which an OFSTED inspection provides. 4. NPH share the concerns expressed in the report about “naming and shaming” schools which often leads to a “vicious” downward spiral. 5. NPH support the Every Child Matters agenda and would wish to explore the potential of a rounded assessment of a school performance including, of course, children’s progress. We would wish to explore in more detail some of the current limiting factors for an inspection outcome. In particular the new definition of the balance between achievement, progress and standards. We would wish to explore how they will ensure a potentially outstanding outcome for all schools in all settings. 6. NPH support Safeguarding being within the remit of the Local Safeguarding Board and an ongoing part of the School Improvement Partners’ regular visits. This would ensure greater local accountability and more frequent and relevant monitoring of this vital area. 7. NPH support the reporting to parents and carers of the overall progress of each child annually. 8. NPH support the enhancement of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate to provide greater professional consistency in terms of inspection, support and analysis of schools. 9. NPH support a National standard and Quality Assurance programme for the appointment of the School Improvement Partner. This should be regularly, externally moderated by central Government to ensure consistency. 10. NPH support exploring the publication of a summary of the appropriate sections of our School Improvement Partners’ Annual report to help parents receive a rounded, consistent view of their local school’s progress. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w57

11. NPH support self evaluation which is rigorous. We welcome the removal of the over burdensome and bureaucratic SEF form currently expected. 12. NPH are committed to promoting the Primary voice and ensuring that our children and communities are fairly represented at every level of decision making. We want to work with our politicians and decision makers to ensure an improved system of accountability. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Governing body and stakeholders of a faith based primary school Executive Summary — The purpose of inspections should be to drive improvement and to celebrate achievement. — Criticism is welcomed when justiﬁed but experience of unjust and badly managed feedback and results of visits can have an unwelcome and lasting impact. — The new regime gives a Lead Inspector room for misinterpretation of information and therefore there needs to be a robust training plan for inspectors. — The opportunity to challenge a report should also be reviewed as currently there is no independent body which can be used to review and overturn any poor judgements or endorse successful challenges to an inspection report.

1. What the purposes of inspection should be 1.1 As Governors of a Faith based Primary School the role of Ofsted to inspect the work, environment, progress and safety of the children in our care is accepted and indeed respected as it has a place in enabling parents of current or prospective pupils to feel that they are part of a school which will provide their child/ children with the quality of care and education they wish for and which their child/children are entitled to. 1.2 The purpose of such inspections should be to drive improvement and to celebrate achievement. These inspections should be held with an open mind allowing the school being inspected to make appropriate representations to inspectors. There should be equal respect on both sides allowing for dialogue between both parties. 1.3 Inspections are always useful to heighten focus on areas for development but judgements made in a negative way undermine good practice and so turns a positive and enriching experience into a burden and causes low morale.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement and the weight given to different factors within the inspection process 2.1 An inspection process which starts with a pre-emptive statement about the standard of the school prior to the visit does not give the school and its governing body confidence that there is a fair and open judgement being made. 2.2 When a reduction in the previous grade gained by a school is made, the process of how that is achieved can leave the staff and parents in a state of anxiety and concern, not only demoralised and disheartened but believing that all the good and effective results that have been achieved were not valued. 2.3 Timing too is crucial, an inspection held on the last but one day of the summer term when all staff and pupils are tired and ready for a break does not give the school involved a just period for inspection. Inspections should only be held when reasonable and with proper concern for the extent to which the process affects how the school is run during that time. 2.4 The inspection team through their very role cause great strain whilst in the school and when observing classes it can give teachers a sense of anxiety about children who take the opportunity to misbehave. This was proven during a report which in a school of 407 pupils the final report stated that five boys in a named class misbehaved and for that reason the whole school had its grade for behaviour reduced. 2.5 Improvement is the accepted reason for an inspection but a flawed inspection can cause long term problems for a school. The effects of a badly managed inspection can cause physical ill health as well and this should be a consideration for inspectors in the language used in reports and how feed back in managed during the process. Criticism is welcomed when justified but experience of unjust and badly managed feedback and results of visits can have an unwelcome and lasting impact. It is obviously going to affect current but also prospective pupils, making parents unjustly fearful. 2.6 Any governing body would hope that what comes out of an inspection is fair and clear and with recommendations that are given to help the school improve. Contradictory statements both within the document and given as feedback do not support the inspection role. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Education Committee: Evidence

2.7 The use of data to underpin achievement should be balanced with the added value that a school and its environment bring. 2.8 In particular the evaluation of the work of the special needs staff needs to weighted with sensitivity both for staff and parents and criticisms and comments in reports need to be sensitive to these requirements. There needs to be a balance, taking into account context and types of needs such as autism.

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work including the consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. 3.1 There has to be high level quality for any Lead inspector and there should be a mechanism whereby other inspectors on a team are able to voice their concerns about the behaviour and attitude of the Lead Inspector. This is a very powerful role and one where the person concerned has the total authority to re-write what other inspectors have written and given in feedback to meet a preconception. 3.2 The quality of the written report is also paramount and obvious discrepancies are not able to be challenged before they are made public. There is also a culture of not being able to be critical of reports whereby the Inspection team is always right and no one can easily call its judgement into question. 3.3 The new inspection regime has become focused on data to the detriment of the added value and school ethos so important to the complete well-being of a child. It is also clear that as there is no consistency about the collection of this data, inspectors can read it differently and also on occasions not understand what they are being given. This is why it is imperative that the level of training for inspectors should be of a very high standard. Respect for the institution which they are inspecting should also be shown as best practice, as that will enable the school being inspected to have a good dialogue with the inspector and able to challenge openly and fairly any statements made. 3.4 The setting of grades needs to be clearer. For example, a series of one and two grades with one three in a subject area ends up as a three grading and that can seem unjust. The new regime does seem to give a Lead Inspector a great of room for misinterpretation of information and therefore there needs to be a robust training plan for inspectors.

4. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate. 4.1 In a previous regime, there was an inspectorate whose role encompassed inspection generally and this environment gave credibility to the role and professionalism of inspectors. Ofsted has become too to narrow in its focus and the role needs to be revised so as ensure that the inspection process lives added value to the organisations it is inspecting. 4.2 The opportunity to challenge a report should also be reviewed as currently there is no independent body which can be used to review and overturn any poor judgements or successful challenges to an inspection report. Schools are fearful of challenging the process because there is the “whistle blower” syndrome of being subject to retribution. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by SkillsActive Executive Summary This submission focuses primarily on the role of Ofsted as regards inspection of playwork settings (after- school and breakfast clubs, holiday playschemes, and adventure playgrounds) registered on either the Early Years Register or General Childcare Register. It is based on the views of both employers and practitioners, highlighting the problems, in particular the lack of understanding of the ethos of playwork settings they consistently encounter when dealing with Ofsted 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) For settings on the Early Years Register and the General Childcare Register, the purpose of inspections should be to ensure that settings meet the requirements of the registers upon which they are registered. The potential problem with this is that requirements can be too rigid and too rigidly interpreted. SkillsActive has worked with Ofsted to develop some degree of ﬂexibility so that frameworks such as the Early Years Foundation Stage can be delivered in different ways depending on the nature and purpose of the setting. Even though the system allows for some ﬂexibility, settings often report to us that Ofsted do not always allow this. (b) We believe that the purposes of inspecting educational establishments would be fundamentally to monitor the learning and development of children as well as ensuring their safety. For settings in the playwork sector, primarily after-school and breakfast clubs, holiday playschemes and adventure playgrounds who operate according to the playwork principles, formal learning and development is cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w59

not a priority. We would therefore argue that the purpose of inspecting a playwork setting is simply to ensure the safety of children in the setting’s care.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement (a) Ofsted should also be looking at how the school provides for the wellbeing of its pupils as regards attitudes towards play and break-time. Evidence has shown the importance of freely-chosen play to children, and recent projects in schools have demonstrated the practical benefits of freely-chosen play to the well-being and behaviour of children. (b) As a specific example, South Gloucestershire Council has invested a significant amount of time in developing play opportunities in its primary age schools through the creation of a “Learning and School Effectiveness Play Adviser” post. Over the past five years, play development support has been provided to over half the authority’s primary schools. A programme to support play development called Outdoor Play and Learning (OPAL) has been developed and delivered to thirty schools. South Gloucestershire Council have made the following recommendations. They suggest it would be beneficial if future Ofsted inspectors: (i) Understood what conditions need to be in place for play to flourish in schools. (ii) Understood the value of high quality play opportunities for children of all ages within the school day. (iii) Understood the difference in managing risk thorough risk-avoidance and risk-benefit. (iv) Understood that the law requires that risk is managed on a basis of “as low as is reasonably practicable” and so must weigh up evidence of risk, cost, likelihood, severity and degree of benefit and negative outcomes. (v) Made a presumption that the communities where children live, play and travel are also safe enough for children to be at school without being secured in unless there is significant evidence to prove otherwise. (vi) Please see the Annexe for case studies.

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work (a)The introduction of the Early Year Register has had an impact on the delivery of play provision by many of the providers responding to an online survey carried out by SkillsActive in 200923. There are some key points to mention here. (i) One significant point to make from the data is that some clubs have decided to take themselves out of registration with Ofsted so that they do not have to abide by the requirements of the registers. How wide ranging this measure was last year is unclear. Intuitively, it could be argued that de-registration means no requirement for qualified staff and thus a reduction in quality that the Early Year Register was designed to ensure. (ii) There were concerns raised about the emphasis of Ofsted’s inspections being on the children covered by the Early Year Register, even when this group of children formed a relatively small proportion of the children for whom the setting provided care. (most playwork settings cater to a small proportion of children in the Early Years age range) (b) One other respondent, who had encouraged settings to stick as closely as possible to the playwork principles whilst delivering the EYFS, suggested that Ofsted inspectors did not really know what a playwork setting should be and thus by implication could not inspect it adequately. (c) Nationally, Ofsted released a very good guidance document, “Regulating play-based provision”24 as well as particular guidance to inspectors which states that “Where a setting subscribes to a particular approach—for example, Playwork Principles, Steiner, Montessori or High/Scope; or settings that adhere to a particular faith—the inspector carrying out the inspection must be familiar with this method.”25 There is no evidence from employers that this central guidance has had any significant impact. Ofsted themselves say that “In a play setting, playworkers should be planning for play by providing the best environment possible; they should not be planning the play itself.” This aligns well with the playwork principles, but again, in practice this seems to have had little influence upon inspectors.

4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process (a) With regard to consistency, the Playwork sector, which covers after-school and breakfast clubs, holiday playschemes and adventure playgrounds for children, has had signiﬁcant issues with the performance of individual Ofsted inspectors. Some playwork employers have raised concerns that Ofsted is inconsistent in its approach to inspections across the out of school sector. As Ofsted inspectors are 23 The Early Years Register, General Childcare Register and Early Years Foundation Stage—Holiday Playschemes Impact Assessment, SkillsActive, 2009 24 Regulating play-based provision, Ofsted, 2010 25 Conducting early years inspections, Ofsted, 2009 (revised 2010) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Education Committee: Evidence

not trained in play or the playwork principles (which underlie professional practice and playwork qualiﬁcations) as a matter of course, different inspectors will have a varying understanding of these and what a setting is trying to do. With little understanding of what a play setting is trying to do, it is no surprise that (to give one example) Ofsted inspectors inspecting a holiday playscheme reported that the setting had insufﬁcient numeracy activities. (b) An online survey just completed to feed into Dame Tickell’s call for evidence on the Early Years Foundation Stage highlighted that the current lack of understanding of playwork by Ofsted inspectors is also an issue consistently raised by employers. One of the recommendations of the report based on this survey is that “Ofsted inspectors should attend mandatory training in play and playwork”26 (c) Anecdotal evidence suggests that that there are also large differences in interpretation of requirements by different inspectors. Some are asking for playwork settings to complete learning journals and display planning on the walls, whilst others would not.

5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process (a) Some playwork settings have told us that Ofsted inspectors are much more interested in the Early Years Foundation Stage aged children (0–5) than they are in children in the older age ranges. This can sometimes lead to settings concentrating on what they are doing for this age range at the expense of the older children. (b) Settings have also informed us that Ofsted are much more likely to focus on the learning and development goals required by the Early Years Foundation Stage than anything else, such as the welfare requirements.

6. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate (a) Certainly in terms of playwork settings, we would like to see Ofsted continue to carry out its role inspecting against welfare requirements, but not learning and development, for example as contained in the EYFS. We have indicated to Dame Tickell as part of her review of the EYFS that playwork settings should not have to adhere to the learning and development requirements, and we would like to see a sector-initiated framework addressing quality standards.

7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy (a) SkillsActive is not commenting on this section. October 2010

Annexe 1 8. The Impact of OFSTED inspections in relation to risk management, play and outdoor learning in South Gloucestershire primary Schools. (a). South Gloucestershire has invested more time and effort than most other local authority in the country in developing play opportunities in its primary age schools through the appointment of a “Learning and School Effectiveness Play Adviser” post. Over the past ﬁve years play development support has been provided to over half the authority’s primary schools and a comprehensive programme to support play development called Outdoor Play and Learning (OPAL) has been developed and delivered to thirty schools. (b) An independent evaluation of the of South Gloucestershire’s OPAL programme is currently being carried out jointly by The University of Gloucestershire and The University of the West of England. The interim report was published in August 2010 and has been attached to this submission.27

9. Case One (a) Wellesley Primary (i). The school had worked closely with the local authority play adviser over 18 months to develop an outstanding approach to play. They scored 98% in the OPAL audit which looks at the prerequisite conditions for play across a suite of 15 criteria. (ii) The approach to risk management was a well thought out risk-benefit approach and the levels of supervision for the grounds were in accordance with the guidelines which the schools’ health and safety adviser, the head of health and safety for the Council and the play adviser had agreed and ratified. Approaches to play fighting with the Playpod scrap materials were governed by a scrap-on- scrap basis; an approach which has been developed from a research, evidence and experience and which responds to children’s need and wishes for a more robust approach to rough-and-tumble play. 26 Playwork settings and the Early Years Foundation Stage, A response to the call for evidence by SkillsActive, SkillsActive, 2010 27 Not published on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w61

(iii) The OFSTED inspector glossed over any of the outstanding achievements of the school and focused on the fact that some play took place in places that were away from the direct sight-line of adult supervisors. (iv) The inspector also expressed a view that the well managed and successful approach to scrap-on-scrap play was “over boisterous” and therefore should be curtailed. These judgements were not based on playtime observations or on studying of the accident and incident book. If this had been studied, it would have been clear that there had been an 80% drop in accidents and incidents in the play ground since the school improved its’ play opportunities. (v) The judgement of the inspector was based on an interview with a small group of children who expressed a view they thought that some children might find the play fighting intimidating, though none of them had actually felt intimidated themselves. (vi) The negative impact of the comments made by the inspector has been dramatic as the school concerned is viewed within the authority as the best example of best practice primary school play and therefore there has been a knock on effect to other schools. What is cause for concern is that the inspector’s comments and judgements were not based on evidence. It is also of concern that the inspector did not have sufficient awareness or training to be able to notice that this was probably one of the top three schools in the country in its understanding and provision of play and outdoor learning. It has been visited by the schools throughout the South West as well as the Assistant Director of Play England and the University of Gloucestershire who were immensely impressed by the school’s achivements. (vii) The head at the school did not want to “rock the boat” by challenging the inspector but has since told me he would be happy to show OFSTED around his school to demonstrate the value of what the is doing.

10. Case Two (a) Hawkesbury Primary (i) Hawksbury Primary School is a small village primary set on the edge of fields a few miles North of Chipping Sodbury. The head reported that the OFSTED inspector had advised her that the stone field wall which runs around the boundary of the school was not sufficient for child protection purposes, as strangers could gain access to the school grounds from the fields. (ii) OFSTED must be challenged on comments like this for the following reasons: (iii) Current Health and Safety law requires that risks are mitigated “As Low as is Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP). It does not require all risk to be eliminated. This means that decisions on risk must weigh up the evidence and look at what the benefit will be in relation to the cost and what the negative impact may be. In the case of the evidence of risk posed from outside the schools, there should be a presumption that the environment is safe enough unless the statistics on abductions from rural village schools show that there is an unacceptable level of risk. Advice given should consider what will be likely the reduction of risk in relation to the cost and also what will the negative impacts be. (iv) The negative impacts of surrounding primary schools in high security fencing may outweigh the positive gains. In the Case One the OFSTED inspector based a recommendation to the school to take action because of a perception that children thought others might feel a threat. In relation to the enclosure of many primary schools with very high fencing, consideration must be given to how this makes children feel. Research by CABE in relation to what they call “target hardening” has demonstrated; the more physical evidence in an environment that an area is dangerous, with feature like high security fencing and CCTV cameras; the less safe people perceive an area to be. My own research with children backs this up. The message children get from high fences around that schools is; their own communities in which they live their daily lives, and where they should be learning to travel and play independently, are dangerous and a threat to them. It raises the question of how we will ever build sustainable communities if children are made to feel these communities pose such a threat that they must be secularly separated from them. In an interesting contrast Sweden’s schools are forbidden from fencing themselves away from society as this gives the wrong message about the relationship between the school, society and children.

11. Case Three (a) Little Stoke Primary (i) The head at this school called in the Play Adviser immediately after an OFSTED inspection. The inspector had been looking a the early years outdoor area and said that a gentle tarmac slope, running from the classroom to the outdoor area was a health and safety risk, and the area should not be used until the school had taken steps to mitigate the risk, or supervise the children when they were using the slope. I inspected the area and despite having had ten years experience in both risk management and out door play in schools could not perceive any unacceptable risk. This may seem like a small issue but it is not. Schools are very risk averse institutions and have needed a lot of encouragement from Early Years Advisers and the Play Sector to move way from a risk aversion model of risk management to a risk beneﬁt model. If inspectors are not aware of the difference and issue advice cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Education Committee: Evidence

based on a principle of elimination of risk of all risk, either in the name of health and safety or child protection, then immense damage will be done to the ability of schools to meet children’s basic needs and to deliver the EYFS.

12. Case Four (a) Bromley Heath Junior School (i) This school was the second in the country to reach Platinum level in the Outdoor Play and Learning Awards. This means that it scored 96% against the 15 criteria for creating the best possible conditions for outdoor play and learning. Along with Wellesley it is probably one of the most outstanding schools in the country for the way it has embedded outdoor play and learning into the culture of the school and enabled the children to experience a very rich and diverse range of outdoor play and learning opportunities. This has had a huge impact on the pupils’ enjoyment of school and on a range of social and development skills which enable them to be more imaginative, creative and co-operative learners. (ii) Although the OFSTED inspection did not criticise the school for its approach neither did it recognise the achievements the school had made or how this contributed to standards, learning and happiness.

13. Conclusionand Recommendations (a) The case studies and the independent evaluation report suggest that head teachers, parents, pupils, play experts, academics and researchers, school improvement partners and above all children acknowledge the beneﬁts of high quality play opportunities in schools. (b) Play in schools can only take place if the conditions are right. The most important conditions without which play cannot take place are: (c) freedom to take appropriate levels of risk (d) freedom for children to playfully and independently explore the relationship between themselves and the physical and social environments around them. (e) OFSTED inspections of schools which excel in providing outdoor play and learning opportunities in South Gloucestershire have, at best, failed to notice the contribution of play to the happiness and learning of the children and at worst confounded and eroded good practice.

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; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w63

(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 ionspectorate 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Education Committee: Evidence

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

Memorandum submitted by National Childminding Association Summary 1.1 Childminders in England are registered and inspected by Ofsted. This regulation is welcome because it enables childminding settings to be compared both with each other and with centre based care by parents, it is also valued as a mechanism for illustrating the high quality home based settings available to families in every community. However, many childminders would welcome further guidance for both inspectors and providers, to clarify what documentation is expected of them at inspection. Furthermore, many childminders believe that bespoke training for inspectors (to help them to better understand home-based childcare settings and how the EYFS is applied) could help to eliminate inconsistencies between inspectors regarding acceptable formats and levels of monitoring and recording.

Introduction 2.1 The National Childminding Association welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. 2.2 The National Childminding Association (NCMA) is the only national charity and membership organisation that represents home-based childcare in England and Wales, delivered by registered childminders and nannies, with approximately 40,000 members. We promote quality home-based childcare so that children, families and communities can beneﬁt from the best in childcare and education. NCMA’s vision is for every child to reach their full potential. 2.3 To achieve our vision NCMA works in partnership with: — Children and families, so they are aware of, and have access to, high-quality, home-based childcare, play, learning and family support. — Registered childminders and nannies to ensure they have the information, support and training they need to provide high-quality childcare. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w65

— Government, local authorities, regulators and other organisations in England and Wales who inﬂuence the delivery of children’s services to ensure they take account of home-based childcare and the views of the profession.

Further Information 3.1 Ofsted started registering and inspecting childminding settings in 2001 and since then NCMA has worked closely with the regulatory body to ensure this process is both supportive of childminder’s continued improvement and is reflective of the uniqueness of the home-based setting. 3.2 Being registered, regulated and inspected by Ofsted equally alongside other childcare providers is welcomed by registered childminders for a variety of reasons. These include providing an opportunity to illustrate to parents their childcare setting is regulated and inspected. This quality check also gives parents peace of mind about the standard of the setting and many use Ofsted gradings and reports as a guide and influence when choosing a childcare setting. 3.3 Ofsted inspections also provide a mechanism to support childminders with their continuous improvement (particularly if no other quality improvement support is available in that childminder’s area). They believe being inspected has helped in repositioning childminding as a profession, rather than being seen as just “babysitting”. Ofsted inspections give providers the opportunity to identify areas for improvement in their practice and demonstrate their commitment to continuous professional development. 3.4 As well as supporting individuals to improve, the information gathered by Ofsted and included in its local authority profiles enables authorities to target their resources where improvement is most needed. NCMA works with every local authority in England and sees these profiles used on a regular basis to inform decisions on what types of training to offer practitioners, whether to invest in a childminding network or to target effort on supporting satisfactory practitioners to improve. 3.5 NCMA would urge Ofsted to ensure that all of its inspectors have knowledge of home-based childcare practitioners and appreciate the unique nature of the setting. NCMA members repeatedly report concerns around the inconsistencies between inspections and inspectors. NCMA members have reported that the approach and outcomes of inspections vary according to the inspector’s professional background, such as a school inspector compared to an early years worker. 3.6 In addition, NCMA members report that they still lack clarity around what is expected of them in terms of the EYFS and this confusion is fuelled by the different attitudes of inspectors. Further guidance to inspectors on what is acceptable practice for assessment and observation evidence as part of the EYFS is needed. Sharing this with childminders as well as inspectors would do much to alleviate existing confusion. For example, it would give childminders the confidence to capture information on sticky notes and via photographs and know this would be acceptable to all inspectors. 3.7 Indeed, the inconsistencies are not restricted to being between inspectors but also between inspections, for example with two very similar settings receiving different comments, actions and gradings within a short time period from the same inspector. NCMA members have reported that they would welcome more advice on the evidence they need to produce to achieve specific gradings and greater direction around required actions with to improve, so they are clear what needs to be done to achieve a higher grading at their next inspection. 3.8 Childminders also report anecdotal ‘off-the-cuff’ comments from inspectors which, whilst in the minority, are demoralising, including inspectors commenting that they do not award the grading Outstanding to any childminders. Childminders are delivering the EYFS on a level playing field alongside other providers and are inspected in the same way—NCMA believes that therefore they should be able to achieve any of the inspection gradings. Evidence shows that more registered childminders have been graded Good or Outstanding since the EYFS, clearly highlighting that many inspectors do judge childminding settings fairly. However, ensuring all inspectors undergo training to fully understand a childminding setting alongside other early years settings would eliminate the prejudicial view held by some that home-based settings cannot ever be Outstanding. 3.9 NCMA would be greatly concerned by any move to increase the length of time between Ofsted inspections or to focus on more frequent inspection for just those who do not achieve good or outstanding grades. All childminders are currently inspected every three years and many feel this is already a very long period of time. Situations and quality within settings can vary over this time period and NCMA would urge the Government to maintain the current inspection structure with every childminder being inspected every three years, regardless of the outcome of their previous inspection. While recent work has supported childminders in reflecting on their practice, particularly in completing the Self Evaluation Form, regular Ofsted inspections provide an important opportunity for childminders to discuss and receive feedback on their practice which may otherwise be unavailable by any other formal quality improvement support. As previously outlined, childminders’ access to quality improvement opportunities is variable and dependent on, for example, the amount of funding that a local authority makes available for childminders’ training and development, the scheduling of training opportunities at convenient times for childminders, and childminders' access to quality improvement networks. The provision of such networks across local authorities is currently inconsistent: according to NCMA’s 2010 membership survey, 52% of NCMA members are not part of a formal quality improvement scheme, with more than 1 in 10 saying that such a scheme is not available in their area. In cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w66 Education Committee: Evidence

addition, more than a quarter of those who had not attended any childcare training in the previous 12 months said that this was because training was not available locally or was not available outside their childminding hours. 3.10 NCMA strongly believes that the Self Evaluation Form (SEF) has made the inspection process more efficient for both Ofsted and the practitioner, and a move to less frequent inspection of provision, being delivered particularly by a sole practitioner, and focussed, for example, on just the welfare requirements of the EYFS would be a backwards step. 3.11 NCMA believes that extending the period of time between inspections could only be explored if there was a statutory requirement on local authorities to provide a childminding network that all childminders had the opportunity to belong to, so that this provided another mechanism to support and monitor improving practice. Childminders who join a quality improvement childminding network, such as an NCMA Children Come First network, commit to continuing professional development and are required to achieve at least a level 3 qualification. All this is supported by a dedicated Network Coordinator, who also provides childminders with guidance on best practice and support in achieving the highest standards in their setting. The benefits for childminders include increased recognition of their quality, the ability, if accredited, to offer the free entitlement to early years education and increased peer support and training opportunities.

Recommendations for Action 4.1 NCMA makes the following recommendations to the Select Committee for consideration: — All Ofsted inspectors have an understanding of, or background in, early years. — All Ofsted inspectors are trained to understand the unique nature of childminding setting. — All childminders continue to be inspected on a three year cycle. — Clear guidance should be produced for both providers and inspectors outlining the universally acceptable formats and levels of detail for capturing assessments and observations. — Ofsted inspection focuses on all aspects of the EYFS, not just the welfare requirements. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers 1. The Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) welcomes the opportunity to submit its views to the Education Select Committee inquiry into Ofsted. The institutions which UCET represents are regularly inspected by Ofsted. Our comments are based therefore on very considerable collective experience of the inspection process. 2. In UCET’s view, the central purpose of inspection is to hold organizations and public bodies to account for their work in promoting the educational progress of children and young people. While these organisations of course have a professional obligation to evaluate their own effectiveness, there is a need for an independent body to scrutinize the validity and robustness of an institution’s self-evaluation, so that the public can be assured that the quality of services provided for children and young people meet public, professional and political expectations. In the educational field Ofsted is the independent body which, being able to report with impunity, provides evidence on the quality of provision. Ofsted inspection is a powerful agent through which the accountability of educational institutions is made explicit. 3. It is frequently claimed that inspection holds the key to the enhancement of the quality of provision. That claim needs to be qualified. In our view, the inspection process itself does not effect improvements of provision: through the system of public reporting inspection places very considerable pressure on institutions to examine ways in which the quality of their work can be enhanced. Inspection provides one incentive to improve on current performance. 4. In recent years a single inspection framework has been devised for all bodies and institutions responsible for the education and wellbeing of children and young people. UCET strongly supported the creation of such an integration of services, believing that teachers have a distinctive contribution to make to human flourishing but that it is a contribution that needs to be sensitive to the ways in which the work of teachers influences and is influenced by other professionals. Given the existence of integrated services for children and young people, it makes sense to have these services subject to the same inspection framework and process. 5. While UCET respects the thoroughness, impartiality and professionalism of Ofsted’s inspection of teacher education institutions, there are three respects in which that inspection might be improved. Firstly, in our view, inspection of these institutions is far too frequent. There is a need for Ofsted to be much more economical, not just with regard to the expenditure of effort of its own officers, but also with regard to the resource pressure it creates for institutions. There is a strong case for the re-examination of the principle of proportionality, according to which the frequency of inspection is related to risk. At the same time consideration might be given to the re-introduction of the role of Link Inspector, in line with Estyn’s future practice in Wales. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w67

6. Secondly, UCET maintains that the balance between self-evaluation and externality of scrutiny needs further re-consideration. Ofsted has declared that it seeks to place more emphasis of an institution’s self- evaluation. However, the guidelines relating to the generation of the self-evaluation document, which is integral to the inspection process, is far too detailed and prescriptive. 7. Thirdly, UCET has repeated urged that the highest inspections ratings should not be awarded unless a school or FE college shows a continuing engagement in initial teacher education. That measure would inhibit schools or colleges from regarding initial teacher education as an optional extra, of little relevance to their core business. 8. UCET very much hopes that the Education Select Committee will take full account of these recommendations. 9. We have a ﬁnal general observation to make. If, as Ofsted has repeatedly claimed, the quality of the work of an educational organization or body requires independent scrutiny, then that principle should apply to Ofsted itself. There is a need for an explicit statement about the means by which Ofsted’s work and mode of operation will be independently evaluated, including the criteria to be used in such independent evaluation. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Paul Neilson, FDA national officer and Jon Richards, UNISON national officer on behalf of Trade Union Side (TUS) at Ofsted Call for evidence on: the consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 1. Ofsted has a strong track record in holding public and private services to account. It is an independent guarantor of national standards which parents, carers and children value. Parents, carers and children tell our members during inspections that they are very reassured that inspection is rigorous and that their views are taken seriously. Independent inspection provides the public and the government with objective and expert information about the quality of education, training and care and the extent to which children and young people are protected and safeguarded. 2. Ofsted has a committed, highly qualified and well trained workforce. All Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) have held senior positions in their respective sectors before joining Ofsted. Those HMI inspecting schools were previously head teachers or held senior positions in schools or local authorities. HMI inspecting learning and skills held senior positions in further education colleges, specialist colleges for learners with disabilities or gained extensive experience from senior positions in industry. Social care HMI have been frontline social workers and held senior positions in local authorities. HMI inspecting early years settings have held senior positions in these areas. HMI collectively provide an unparalleled source of expertise across almost all children’s services. 3. HMI are highly skilled in the work they do, not only when inspecting but also in determining policy, designing inspection frameworks, informing national policy and providing specialist advice and expertise to other government departments. 4. Other groups of inspectors employed by Ofsted are similarly highly experienced, well trained and effective. They represent an invaluable resource for the nation which has been accumulated and invested in over many years. We are strongly of the view that it is essential to retain and continue to invest in all of Ofsted’s inspectors. We opposed the outsourcing of early years inspectors by Ofsted and warned of the potential risks to quality and child protection that this could cause, especially if directly employed early years inspectors are replaced with sub-contractors. The interface between Early Years HMI and the outsourced early years inspectors needs to be reviewed. There are issues of training for outsourced staff and how teams work together when they consist of Ofsted staff and outsourced inspectors inspecting children’s centres.

Call for evidence: the role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 5. Ofsted is a national inspectorate which designs and quality assures the work of inspectors working locally in a range of providers. This common standardised approach provides unique benchmarking data.

Call for evidence on: the performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 6. Ofsted should make the best use of inspectors’ specialist expertise in their deployment. Ofsted’s recruitment procedures are good and ensure that Ofsted has a wide range of expertise within its HMI workforce but it does not always make best use of this expertise. Some HMI report that they are not given enough opportunities to use their expertise in the broader range of Ofsted work and too many do not get the opportunity to get involved in strategic level work. 7. It is important that Ofsted maintains a cadre of specialist advisers and especially so given the imminent loss of QCDA and Becta. TUS believes Ofsted will be the one remaining national body with specialist advisers covering all aspects of the curriculum and the broader work of schools, special educational need and/or cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Education Committee: Evidence

disability policy and skills development by further education colleges and work based learning. The surveys conducted by these advisers and the recommendations they make for national policy formulation are invaluable. Ofsted could free up other HMI to use their specialist expertise more widely by reducing the high proportion of their time spent leading inspections. 8. Direct protection is provided for children and young people through regulatory inspections, for example in response to a complaint about registered services. Ofsted has identified this as a specialist role and involve Early Years and social care HMI as well as regulatory inspectors from both sectors. 9. There are problems with some management processes and aspects of the organisational culture. We are committed to public service and do not require a bonus to motivate us to perform to the highest standards. We acknowledge Ofsted’s desire to manage the performance of staff but believe that the recent introduction of the performance related pay (PRP) scheme was unnecessary, inappropriate and incompatible with our function. The processes set up to distribute bonuses have been poorly implemented and have de-motivated staff. We have yet to see any demonstrable beneficial effect and we would wish to see the bonus scheme scrapped immediately. Surveys and union meetings have shown almost no support for retaining performance related pay. We would be happy to work with a proper performance management system that informs professional development and enables individuals to improve. 10. Our members have concerns about the level of staff engagement and the degree to which individuals can work autonomously We believe a move to an open, consultative and engaging culture could stimulate innovation and initiative, speed up decision making and improve efficiency. This point was expressed forcibly in a staff survey conducted by the trade unions during autumn 2009 to which there were 433 respondents. We believe Ofsted needs to empower its inspectors and managers to exercise the skills they have. This will motivate our members and enable Ofsted to make best use of their expertise as well as improving our operational efficiency and impact. 11. Internal surveys conducted by Ofsted in the past have shown that a worryingly high proportion of staff claim to have experienced harassment and bullying at work. Indeed, after the last such survey in 2006 this committee’s predecessor asked a number of questions about the matter during 2007—2008. Unfortunately, as a recent survey run by the trade unions has shown, reports of bullying and harassment continue at a similar level. The survey was based on the Civil Service wide staff engagement survey issued during the autumn of 2009, which Ofsted chose not to participate in. Concerns by staff that they would not have the opportunity to participate in this led the unions to run the survey ourselves. 12. An efficient and effective front line operation requires an effective and efficient team which includes those engaged in policy, planning, quality assurance and support functions. We do not recognise the supposed separation between so called ‘front line’ and ‘back office’ and any cuts in a perceived latter group will have a detrimental impact on the quality of inspection. Inspectors already work excessive hours and adding additional duties can only result in them having less time to devote to inspection itself.

Call for evidence: the weight given to different factors within the inspection process Ofsted should slim down its inspection frameworks so that they are more precisely focused. This would have the following benefits. 13. There is clear evidence of school improvement through inspection and evidence that the vast majority of schools will use the precise recommendations given during inspection to move their schools forward. Ofsted is right to focus its attention and resources where they are needed most, that is on improving weaker schools. This is equally true in the learning and skills remits such as colleges and work based learning. 14. TUS welcomes the move towards a revised schools inspection framework which focuses on the key areas of teaching, learning, achievement, leadership and management, behaviour and safety. The current framework has become too complex and taken away the flexibility for inspectors to use their professional judgement and imposed a level of prescription which is not helpful. A tighter focus on fewer judgements within the same tariff will give inspectors more time to engage in extended dialogue with teachers and school leaders about what they can do to improve their practice further. There is not sufficient time to do this to any great extent within the current inspection model. It is important that any revised framework continues to retain a focus on vulnerable pupils. 15. Safeguarding pupils is a priority for us all but as procedures in nearly all schools have now been checked, the same level of continuing regulation is no longer necessary. Schools have been rigorously checked once and should be expected to sustain the expected standards and to implement any new guidance issued to them. Some aspects of inspecting safeguarding could be carried out in other ways, such as a desk based activity or through brief, unannounced visits to a sample of schools. 16. HMI are in a unique position to judge the quality of teaching and learning in schools, colleges and other providers through many years observing what goes on between teacher and learner in the classroom. HMI are the only external group of people who have the privilege of seeing teaching and learning first hand and therefore are in a strong position to be able to make professional judgements based on their extensive experience. In recent inspection cycles for schools and the learning and skills sector there has been a strong focus in lesson observations on what the learners are learning as opposed to judging the teacher performance. This has enabled cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w69

HMI to better judge the progress learners make in lessons, which in turn has a direct impact on how the quality of the teaching is judged and TUS would want to see this focus remain. 17. Ofsted learning and skills inspectors work in partnership with both HMI Prison and Probation. Joint inspections have enabled both inspectorates to share resources thereby providing a more cost effective service. Improvements in prison education have been evidenced, for example there has been much progress in terms of prisoner learning and skills. HMI in learning and skills also carry out inspections commissioned by the MOD. These are short, sharply focused inspections which have led to significant improvements in the care and welfare of recruits and trainees across all three of the armed services. TUS believe the model could be successfully applied to other learning and skills remits. 18. We welcome the move towards unannounced inspection of social care providers and agree with the view expressed by stakeholders that inspectors should ‘see it as it is’. Opportunities to talk directly with front line staff about their work and their records should be increased. However, we are concerned about any activity which involves accompanying front line staff on visits to families in their own home due to the confidential and sensitive nature of this work. More work needs to be done with local authorities and social care employers so that they better understand the social care inspection process. The current air of suspicion and mistrust that exists in too many places is unhelpful and needs dealing with. 19. Ofsted should slim down the amount of text in inspection reports. The important outcomes of inspection are in arriving at fair judgements and in ensuring providers have detailed feedback and guidance about how they can improve. Lengthy passages of text are an extravagance and costly to quality assure. 20. A reduction in the length and complexity of the section 5 school inspection report would be welcomed. TUS believes this would greatly reduce the resource needed for quality assuring the current lengthy sections of text in reports. There is some anecdotal evidence that parents rely more on the brief letter to pupils to learn what the school is like than on the main sections of text. 21. Social care reporting arrangements for safeguarding and looked after children inspections should be simplified and the number of judgements vastly reduced. More use should be made of short letters which succinctly summarise the findings already shared in detail during the inspection. This would release resources to strengthen the focus on examining the quality of front line practice and its management. 22. TUS believes that the range of judgements for learning and skills inspections should be reduced and welcomes the fact that Ofsted is reviewing the Learning and Skills framework to see how it can be streamlined. The reporting requirements should also be reduced as currently the reports are too lengthy and there is unnecessary repetition. 23. In the current economic environment a framework based on expectations, and inspection reports that identify an agenda for improvement against expectations, would help further prioritise quality improvement strategies. This approach would be valued by the learning and skills sector where their capacity to improve comes from being autonomous organisations which can more effectively target resources in these financially tight times.

Call for evidence: whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children's learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 24. TUS is of the view that Ofsted should be retained as the single inspectorate. Whilst there have undoubtedly been problems in creating ‘one Ofsted’, the potential benefits to be had from sharing cross remit expertise are apparent if not yet realised. Further progress should be made in using the full range of inspector expertise across inspection remits. Schools inspections might benefit from the expertise of social care colleagues in assessing behaviour and safeguarding. In the same way looked after children and safeguarding inspections already benefit from the involvement of an education expert in their teams. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The Fostering Network The Fostering Network is the voice of foster care. We have nearly 60,000 foster carers in membership, plus most local authorities and 169 independent fostering agencies. We work in partnership with foster carers, social workers, parents, children, and young people, local authorities, independent fostering providers and voluntary organisations to fulﬁl our principle objective, which is to improve the lives of children and young people in foster care. 1. The Role and Performance of Ofsted: summary: The Fostering Network’s response concentrates on the inspection of fostering services. Our response is based on the experience of our members, the combined views of a group of staff members and foster carers. Our main recommendations are: — Focus on improving inspection rather than the organisation which undertakes inspection — Inspection must move away from “tick-box” approach—and become a force for improvement cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Education Committee: Evidence

— Outcomes for children should be the focus of inspection — Inspectors should have good knowledge of child development — Inspectors of foster care must have expertise in fostering — Inspections should place more emphasis on foster carers’ views — Individuals with knowledge of foster care should be encouraged to enter the inspectorate — The inspection ﬁndings of fostering services should be compared with the inspection reports of related children’s services within an area — Ofsted should publish themed reports to indicate areas for general improvement — The Ofﬁce of the Child Rights Director should be retained

2. Ofsted has undergone considerable changes within a relatively short period of time. Any further signiﬁcant revision of Ofsted would usher in the third inspection body within 10 years. This turnover is in itself a problem—each inspection body requires time to settle down. Therefore we recommend making improvements to inspection rather than the creation of a new body.

3. We would welcome simpliﬁcation of the inspection, and moving away from the “tick box” approach associated with an overriding emphasis on enforcement, which has often emphasised multiple issues of lesser importance. Inspections should suggest ways in which individual and collective fostering services could improve, as well as rating them. At the same time, inspections must be robust in challenging services which are not good enough.

4. Inspection standards often seem to be inconsistent. Frequently there is an over-emphasis on complying with criteria which are neither evidenced in the National Minimum Standards nor the Regulations. Above all, the inspection should seek to establish how the fostering service judges the quality of care. Outcomes for children are quite rightly more prominent in the forthcoming revised draft of the new National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services. Outcomes for children should be the focus of the inspection. This is particularly pertinent where long-term placements are concerned.

5. We recognise that there are tensions between seeking objectively-measured, comparable base-line outcomes, (e.g. attainment of examination grades), and the need to assess the realistic personal progress (or deterioration) of individual children. Therefore inspectors should have a good knowledge of child development so as to comprehend realistic and attainable outcomes for the individual child. We regard the interviewing of children as very important, in order to identify how the fostering service handles the individual’s issues.

6. The level of expertise across the foster care inspectorate should be consistent, and relevant to the task. Inspectors of fostering services should have some experience and knowledge of foster care. In order to bring this about, foster carers should be encouraged to apply to become Inspectors. One way of doing so would be to introduce short, specialised training schemes to prepare foster carers to apply to become Inspectors.

7. Inspections should place more emphasis on foster carers’ evidence, and there should be transparency as to whether this has happened in the context of individual inspections. Inspectors should be able to interview both individual foster carers and also foster care associations. Whilst interviews with foster carers should take place at random, foster carers should nonetheless have the opportunity to speak to the inspector if they wish to do so. The inspection report should be sent to foster carers by the fostering service.

8. The inspection of fostering services against the National Minimum Standards for Foster Care must also be backed up by the quality assessment of other services, such as children’s social work. Foster care can only work to produce good outcomes for the child if a range of services play their part—e.g. school, college, health services. Therefore it is important that the combined provision of different agencies is reviewed in the round, particularly in the light of removal of children’s trusts and joint area reviews. This does not imply, however, that we favour a dilution of the expertise of the foster care inspectorate.

9. Ofsted should undertake themed inspections or pull together assessments on themed issues across fostering service providers. For example, it could look at the fostering services’ performance in supporting the health of looked after children. The purpose should be to indicate general areas for improvement, and ways of driving up standards.

10. The Fostering Network greatly values the work of the Ofﬁce of the Child Rights Director (currently based within Ofsted) in seeking and collating the views of children, as well as issuing themed reports and advising on individual cases. In view of the particular vulnerability of looked-after children, and children in social care, combined with the responsibility of statutory authorities to assure their rights, this role is vital, and should be retained, wherever it may be based. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w71

Memorandum submitted by The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Executive Summary — CIPFA’s submission addresses the issue of financial accountability and in particular a number of obstacles faced by local authorities in helping improve schools’ accountability. — A small change in the requirements made by the Department for Education and Ofsted could lead to a potentially large improvement in the lines of accountability if Ofsted could include in its inspections and reports the school’s progress towards achieving the Financial Management Standard (FMSiS). — Guidance to Ofsted inspectors should include the need to check for any worrying finance or accountability issues and if found, to include these in a Notice of Concern. — Schools should be required to provide information on school balances in the report card. — Local authorities’ existing powers to intervene if a school is unable to manage its finances effectively are cumbersome and not easily understood by the public. Therefore it would be helpful if local authorities could be clear that backing from the Department for Education can be expected for authorities where a Notice of Concern has been issued.

Submitter: The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is the professional body for people in public finance. Our 14,000 members work throughout the public services, in national audit agencies, in major accountancy firms, and in other bodies where public money needs to be effectively and efficiently managed. As the world’s only professional accountancy body to specialise in public services, CIPFA’s portfolio of qualifications are the foundation for a career in public finance. They include the benchmark professional qualification for public sector accountants as well as a postgraduate diploma for people already working in leadership positions. They are taught by our in-house CIPFA Education and Training Centre as well as other places of learning around the world. We also champion high performance in public services, translating our experience and insight into clear advice and practical services. They include information and guidance, courses and conferences, property and asset management solutions, consultancy and interim people for a range of public sector clients. Globally, CIPFA shows the way in public finance by standing up for sound public financial management and good governance. We work with donors, partner governments, accountancy bodies and the public sector around the world to advance public finance and support better public services.

Factual Information / Submission 1 CIPFA welcomes the Inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. Although we appreciate that the focus of the Inquiry will be mostly on Ofsted’s wider role in inspection and performance reporting in relation to maintained schools in England, we note that the Committee is interested to receive views on the role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy. We believe that some small changes in Ofsted’s role could lead to a potentially large improvement in the lines of accountability even within the context of a scaling down of Ofsted’s overall role. 2 At the time of writing, some of the detail around the financial accountability for the new academies and free schools will work and it is possible that some of our following paragraphs may not in practice fit fully with the new arrangements. Nevertheless, CIPFA believes that it is vital for accountability overall that all schools funded from public money should be held financially accountable and our submission addresses the issue of financial accountability and how we think the current arrangements might be best improved. 3 Schools’ expenditure through the Dedicated Schools Grant amounts to some £30bn of public money and in CIPFA’s view there is currently no real opportunity to show publicly and ultimately to the taxpayer, how a school manages its finances for this money, however it is distributed to the schools and regardless of a school’s model of governance. At present, in CIPFA’s view, lines of accountability and delegated responsibility are not always present and where they are, there is sometimes confusion. In CIPFA’s view, there is a danger that this confusion will increase with the move towards the new “free” schools if steps are not taken to address these issues. 4 CIPFA believes that local authorities have a clear role to play in helping improve and reinforce lines of accountability from schools to government, but that at present local authorities face a number of obstacles to ensuring accountability, for example where there is currently no obligation on schools or some kinds of schools to provide the information essential for clear accountability. 5 One area where a small change in the requirements made by the Department for Education and Ofsted could lead to a potentially large improvement in the lines of accountability is around the requirement in the authority's Scheme for Financing Schools that all schools are assessed against the Financial Management Standard (FMSiS). Good financial management must surely be a prerequisite for good financial accountability. Assessment against the FMSiS is currently—and CIPFA believes rightly so—compulsory. There is however cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Education Committee: Evidence

little or no comeback for schools which score badly against the standard or fail to submit for assessment, apart from the Authority’s ability to issue a Notice of Concern. It would be helpful if perhaps Ofsted could include in its inspections and consequent reports the extent of a school’s progress towards achieving the standard. The authority's scheme should still make it clear that its section 151 responsibilities apply. 6 CIPFA believes that it would be helpful if schools could be required to provide information on how they control and manage their financial performance within their overall activities, and what part of their funding is spent on children currently attending the school, ie, that information on school balances should be included in the report card. Requiring the inclusion of the trend in school balances and the percentage that the total balances represent for the school, compared to the average percentage for the same sector in that Local Authority would also be useful, because if the percentage is rising it is indicative that the school is not spending its current funding on the children currently in school. While performance and financial accountability are intrinsically linked, there are in schools, as with other public services differences between service users and funders. Therefore schools should be accountable to the taxpayer who provides the resources, not just to the parents and children who use the service. 7 CIPFA believes that there is sometimes a lack of clarity about the evidence on which Ofsted make their judgements on financial management and Value For Money. CIPFA suggests therefore that guidance to Ofsted inspectors could include the need to check for any worrying finance or accountability issues and if found, to include these in a Notice of Concern. Such a Notice could then encourage good practice in financial management and accountability as could follow-up enquiries from Ofsted on whether and how a school resolved such concerns. 8 Also to this end, CIPFA suggests that school report cards, as part of school accountability to parents, could be required to include financial information, such as: what the school’s balances are and what they are held for. The school report card could also include a statement on whether or when the school had achieved FMSiS. This would help bring together both financial and performance accountability information, providing clear evidence of how a school is doing to those people to whom schools should be accountable—the parents, the local authority, the pupils, the teachers and other school staff. 9 We recognise that local authorities do have some powers to intervene if a school is unable to manage its finances effectively, i.e. issuing a Notice of Concern or withdrawing delegation. However, these are cumbersome and not easily understood by the public. Withdrawing delegation is widely regarded as a last resort as it takes away a governing body's responsibility to solve its own problems, causes significant additional work for the Local Authority, and can damage the relationship between the school and the Authority, making it difficult to make the transition when delegation is reinstated. It would be helpful if local authorities could be clear that backing from the Department for Education can be expected for authorities where a Notice of Concern has been issued, as the Department's emphasis on school autonomy can sometimes lead schools to disregard the LA's powers.

Recommendations CIPFA therefore recommends: — That guidance to Ofsted inspectors should include the need to check for any worrying finance or accountability issues and if found, to include these in a Notice of Concern — That school report cards be required to include financial information, such as: what the school’s balances are and the purposes for which they are held. For inspection purposes this could, for example, include a copy of the signed budget plan. — That the school report card should also include a statement on whether or when the school had achieved the required Financial Management Standard (FMSiS) (or if the school has been deemed by the s151 Officer to have achieved the Standard without external assessment). — That the Department for Education should make clear to schools its backing for authorities where a Notice of Concern has been issued. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Neil Roskilly, Chief Executive Ofﬁcer, The Independent Schools Association The Independent Schools Association represents 300 independent schools and 70,000 pupils aged 0–18 across England and Wales. ISA is one of the ﬁve independent headteachers’ associations that are founder members of the Independent Schools Council. Reference to the question: Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate. 1. ISA would not agree that education in the UK would be best served through one inspectorate. ISI provide the independent sector with a form of peer inspection that builds positively upon an intimate knowledge of the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w73

sector derived from working within it, whilst also maintaining the highest independently-corroborated standards. 2. In addition, one inspectorate would suggest a coming together of the diverse legislative stands that apply to the maintained and independent sectors, something that will only be possible with great compromise and generalisation. For that to be avoided under one inspectorate, inspectors would need to specialise by sector and that would rather defeat the purpose. 3. Where beneﬁts have been gained recently, these have been achieved through vertical integration, ensuring that the independent schools inspectorate covers all aspects of inspection in the sector. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum 1. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the select committee’s review of Ofsted. The Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum is the representative body for the 93 designated Sixth Form Colleges in England. Collectively, Sixth Form Colleges educate around 160,000 young people aged 16–18, the large majority of which are following ‘A’ level and other level three courses in preparation for entry to University or employment. In 2008–09, 45% of Sixth Form Colleges inspected were judged by Ofsted to be outstanding, with 85% judged to be at least good. 2. In broad terms Sixth Form Colleges value the work of Ofsted. We believe it is important, if not essential, to have an independent inspectorate, able to make informed, professional judgements about the relative quality of institutions which can then, in turn, be used to make informed choices and decisions about those institutions. In this way Ofsted provides an accountability mechanism for Government, acting on behalf of taxpayers, to ensure Schools and Colleges are delivering effective education for the public investment they receive. Ofsted judgements are also powerful and respected indicators for parents and students in making decisions and choices about the education institutions available to them. Ofsted judgements and reports also provide useful and valuable feedback for school and college improvement strategies. 3. However, we have some issues with the operation of all these accountabilities and the uses to which Ofsted judgements are put. 4. Firstly, we have repeatedly expressed our concern and consternation with the differentiated standards which Ofsted use. The public perception, often shared by professionals who should know better, is that Ofsted judgements are transferable across sectors. That is not the case. Ofsted use differentiated judgements which set different standards for schools, FE Colleges, other providers and Sixth Form Colleges. If a sector, like Sixth Form Colleges, is high performing, then the standards are high and vice-versa. This means that a school or FE College, judged outstanding, often has a lower performance than a Sixth Form College judged good or even satisfactory. This can happen where institutions are in close geographical proximity and compete for students with each other. 5. Ofsted’s defence is to argue for the value of their judgements in driving sector improvement and to point out that Sixth Form Colleges do well in inspections despite their challenging benchmarks. We argue that sector improvement is important but is not the main purpose of inspection and in an increasingly competitive environment it is vital that judgements are transparent, well understood and comparable across sectors. 6. We are also concerned about the basis on which judgements are now made. Historically, we believe that the real value of the inspection process was in the thorough analysis of teaching and learning through classroom observation and the gathering of the implicit values that the institution espoused through conversations with Governors, senior management, staff, students and parents. A holistic view was taken which complemented and sometimes challenged a simplistic analysis of raw results, value-added and success rate data. With the current inspection regime it is now extremely rare if an inspection grade and report deviates from the achievement and retention profile revealed by the data. That profile, in turn, is strongly influenced by the innate ability profile of the students. Our analysis of recent College inspection grades is striking in the correlation it has with overall ability levels of the cohort. In simple layman’s terms, the better the intake, the better the success rates, and this leads to better inspection grades. 7. We welcome the recent statement, by the Secretary of State, to re-focus inspection on the teaching and learning process and to remove bureaucratic compliance issues. However we would like to see a sharper focus on value-for-money and a proper recognition for the context in which an institution is working. Schools and Colleges should not be penalised, through the inspection regime, for taking on challenging and difficult students. 8. We would argue that the accountability framework for Sixth Form Colleges is currently amongst the most burdensome of all publically funded sectors. As well as the full Ofsted Inspection framework, Sixth Form Colleges are also scrutinised under Framework for Excellence. Following the ASCL Act, plans are also being developed for the performance and financial management of Sixth Form Colleges by their local authority under the statutory guidance of the YPLA. As incorporated Colleges, Sixth Form Colleges are also required to undergo external financial audit prior to publishing their accounts and have extensive statutory internal audit cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Education Committee: Evidence

regimes. We would wish to see, therefore, a thorough rationalising of this accountability framework, the avoidance of duplication and signiﬁcant moves towards self-regulation. Sixth Form Colleges have a proven track record of high achievement, have good governance and deliver exceptional value-for-money. This sector could, safely, be left to manage its own affairs. 9. In a simpliﬁed and less bureaucratic environment, a reformed, refocused Ofsted, would have an important role in providing periodic external validation of the quality and value of the Sixth Form College sector. However the inspection process should not be duplicated by any other quality assessment process other than an institution’s own self assessment and internal quality assurance systems. Grades and reports should be consistent and be comparable across sectors. Due weight should be given to value-for-money alongside value- added and success rates. October 2010

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 four 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w75

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.

(b) ISCs that offer residential provision are also inspected by the Care Quality Commission. Although this means they are subject to additional inspection visits, the frameworks and approaches are very different and therefore this arrangement is generally perceived to be satisfactory. Colleges get the beneﬁt of two sets of expertise and with the new CQC registration framework this should only improve

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.

(b) We believe that outstanding colleges are well placed to stay abreast of developments and changes in practice without having to rely on Ofsted. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by The Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers The Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers NAFP is the only UK wide Trade Association of independent and voluntary fostering services providers. Formed in 2008, NAFP is a not-for-proﬁt organisation and a company limited by guarantee. Our Mission is: “to be the voice of the independent and voluntary fostering sector for children and young people, and to promote high standards of professional and business practice within the membership”

Membership Membership currently stands at 45 organisations, representing 150 registered fostering services in England, Scotland and Wales. This reﬂects over 70% of the children placed in the independent and voluntary sector. Member organizations include the largest independent fostering agencies and large children’s charities working together with small and medium size fostering agencies. Membership is open to all registered independent and voluntary sector fostering providers and the Board and Executive Committee are elected from each level of membership to ensure that all sizes of organisation have a voice. NAFP’s current Chairman is Kevin Williams, CEO of the Children and Adolescents Trust.

Executive Summary This submission is made on behalf of the membership of NAFP, and focuses on Ofsted’s role as the Regulator of children’s fostering services. Inspection and Registration of Fostering Services was introduced under the Care Standards Act 2000, which established the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) and brought independent and voluntary fostering services within the inspection framework for the first time. The responsibility for registration and inspection was transferred from NCSC to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and then to Ofsted, who remain responsible for the inspection and regulation of children’s homes and children’s fostering services alongside their other responsibilities for education and daycare. Thus there have been three changes of regulator in less than eight years. While NAFP welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate good outcomes for children and quality services through a robust and thorough inspection regime, we would not wish to see a further change of regulator since this would place unacceptable burdens on fostering providers at a time of severe economic pressure. NAFP would prefer to see improvements in the current system, as outlined below, which we believe would bring benefits for looked after children at minimal cost to services. Recommendations for Action: 1. NAFP welcomes and supports regulation and seeks to work in partnership with regulators to improve the current system 2. Ofsted is an improvement on NCSC and CSCI in many respects, e.g. is able to inspect corporate bodies/ large national organisations centrally thus cutting down on costly and unnecessary bureaucracy. 3. However, Inspectors still “tick boxes” i.e. there is a focus on providers having the correct paperwork in place rather than on achieving good outcomes for children. NAFP therefore recommends that the system for carrying out inspections is reviewed to promote a more child-centred focus. 4. Advice and guidance is currently not given to support providers. CSCI Inspectors were able to offer advice and guidance to fostering services with regard to their interpretation of the regulations. CSCI also produced a “precedents log” which was helpful in clarifying how issues had been dealt with by inspectors and services. NAFP recommends that this is reinstated by Ofsted. 5. Services are currently seeing localised interpretation of the National Minimum Standards by Inspectors. This may be due to some inspectors having a poor knowledge of the type of services they are inspecting, or a lack of clarity as to what the standards and regulations dictate. NAFP recommends that there is more “joined up thinking” between Ofsted and the Department for Education in order to ensure that both inspectors and fostering services are clear what is required in each situation. 6. Members have found that scoring is still subjective, with different inspectors awarding different scores for the same piece of evidence. NAFP recommends that there is a set standard for achieving each score, which is defined in the National Minimum Standards. 7. In order to make the system more child focussed, and encourage consistency in inspections, there is a need for a national outcomes tracker/format that can be used by Oftsed/LA’s/DfE instead of each body having a different format. This would also save costs for both placing authorities and providers who would not need to use numerous methods for collating statistics to evidence children’s progress in placement. NAFP recommends that the Scottish system of Case Tracking ia used for all looked after children. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w77

8. Currently Ofsted is not seen as a body that works in partnership with fostering services e.g. no named inspector/contact person, no consistency of process, no discussion or advice, and an adversarial approach to inspection. NAFP recommends that a working group is established with representatives from the independent and voluntary fostering sector and local authority fostering services to review the current system of inspection by Ofsted and make much needed improvements. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Westminster City Council

1. What Should Be The Purpose Of Inspection?

1.1 Westminster is a high performing local authority. Within Westminster there are 8 secondary schools, 40 primary schools, 14 nursery schools, 8 Sixth forms, 2 special schools, 2 pupil referral units, over 180 childcare providers, including childminders, and 3 further education/tertiary providers. In December 2009, the Council was rated as having Children Services which performed well. Despite this since 2009 the Council and schools within the City of Westminster have been subject to inspection over 50 times.

1.2 We recognise the importance of high quality services across the board—education, adoption, fostering, social care and safeguarding. However, we consider that the current Ofsted regime has become unduly bureaucratic and burdensome. Inspected agencies and services are required to provide voluminous amounts of data and information for inspectors but receive minimal feedback via Ofsted reports.

1.3 We believe that the purpose of inspection is very straightforward. It should be to: — To improve outcomes for children, families and learners through ensuring the effectiveness and standards of services provided. — To ensure appropriate standards and quality of provision for all users — To advise where there are shortfalls in service provision and identify how these may be improved

These three objectives are consistent for all inspected provision. In relation to schools the major focus should be on school improvement and ensuring educational standards. Our concerns around suitable accountability mechanisms, particularly relating to schools, are covered under question 7.

1.4 Westminster does not support an unduly onerous inspection regime. The amount of tick boxing and form ﬁlling that currently accompanies inspections of any service has over-ridden what the real purpose should be— to ensure quality services are being delivered to all and to promote and support improvement in these services. To do this inspection needs to be as active as possible rather than a paper-driven exercise. This means spending as much time as possible with frontline services and for education providers, in the classroom, assessing the quality of teaching and learning experience.

1.5 We are supportive of the move for those schools categorised as good or outstanding to be subject to a reduced inspection regime. This must be supported by an adequate trigger mechanism when there are concerns about performance, safeguarding or welfare. With the abolition of CAA we would like guidance on the future of the annual local authority performance proﬁles. One alternative could be to introduce a peer review system. This would allow high performing local authorities to review performance of others and support and facilitate improvement.

2. The Impact Of The Inspection Regime On School Improvement

2.1 An effective inspection regime is an integral part of school improvement. Headteachers in Westminster report to the Council that they consider inspections to generally be constructive and contribute towards school improvement. Useful guidance, identiﬁcation of key issues and areas for improvement are usually clearly set out and follow up support is usually good. For schools, the ﬁnal categorisations used are thought to be clear, easy to understand and effective.

2.2 However, to improve the impact of inspection we would suggest reducing the scope of inspections to make them more targeted. For example, school inspections should focus on pupil progress, development and attainment—for most inspection teams this is where there expertise lies. At the moment, the breadth of inspection is considerable and includes considering these aspects in addition to the safeguarding agenda. Given the importance and complex nature of safeguarding, we consider that it may be appropriate to commission specialist inspectors to carry out this aspect of the inspection.

2.3 The impact of inspections could be further enhanced by introducing differentiated inspection frameworks. The current framework is too generic and does not acknowledge the differences between primary, secondary and specialist provision. We would support a switch to an inspection framework which included phase speciﬁc as well as generic sections. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Education Committee: Evidence

3. The Performance Of Ofsted In Carrying Out Its Work 3.1 For the majority of Children’s Services, Ofsted has become a very blunt instrument. Our frontline staff and managers have found the performance of Ofsted to be variable. Performance is largely dependent on the quality of the lead inspector or inspection team. Inspections tend to be carried out using rigid frameworks with little dialogue or negotiation around findings. Although frameworks are rigid, the areas focused on by an inspection team can be skewed by different priorities or areas of interest making final reports unbalanced. For example, in an inspection of fostering households, an excessive focus on health and safety checks led to a recommendation that already extensive questions should be rewritten to include reference to ceremonial swords. 3.2 Inspectors are felt to have a lack of hands on experience of service delivery and a lack of familiarity with local issues. One suggested improvement would be to have locality based inspectorate teams who would have a good understanding of local area and issues faced. This would also allow better relationships to be developed with local communities and stakeholders and improve the quality and range of information provided to inspectors. 3.3 The generic nature of surveys and forms used is also a cause for concern. Surveys produced for service users often do not bear any relevance to the work under scrutiny and cannot be adapted to reflect the way services are set up at a local level. 3.4 We also feel that the quality of the final reports produced by Ofsted can be very variable and that the work of Ofsted does not ‘promote and support improvement’. There is an imbalance between the amount of data and supporting paperwork which agencies and providers are asked to produce and the quality and rigour of final reports. Dialogue around final reports is only permitted on factual inaccuracies. We would support greater engagement between inspectors and inspected services—this should help to improve the quality and usefulness of the final report and target improvement work successfully. 3.5 The current inspection regime does not seem to appropriately reward innovation particularly in social care services. For example, Westminster has pioneered a new child protection model in which unqualified social work assistants are used to reduce the bureaucratic burden on frontline social workers and allow qualified social workers to undertake more direct work with children and families. Although this innovative approach has been recognised as good practice by the Munro Review, this would not be reflected in the findings of an Ofsted Inspection. 3.6 The recently introduced changes to categorisation have created confusion for those who are being inspected as well as for parents, children and service users. Westminster supports a drive to improve standards but the new framework has not been communicated well or made it easier for children, parents and service users to consider the quality of services being delivered to them. 3.7 In relation to school inspections, performance would be improved and costs reduced if inspection teams worked more closely with local authorities to ensure appropriate evidence and transparency. However, the quality of inspectors in this area is felt to have improved and head teachers generally report that they find inspections constructive. The two day inspection window only permits a snapshot of the school, therefore it is vital that inspection teams are of good quality and that there is a health level of dialogue with all those connected to the school. Costs could potentially be reduced through the involving local authorities in helping to supply evidence and making more use of local authority school categories. 3.8 The current complaints procedure does not work well. Complaints about Ofsted are not followed up with enough rigour and there is a lack of flexibility in the system. If a formal complaint is lodged it goes directly to the contracted company and it is their responsibility to consider and pass on. In our experience complaints have not always been addressed or responded to with appropriate speed or depth. 3.9 In terms of ongoing evaluation of their own performance, we feel this is an area where Ofsted could improve considerably. There is a lack of ongoing monitoring and a lack of opportunity for schools or providers to give feedback on Ofsted inspections and the quality of contractors. Greater weight could be given to feedback forms for schools filled out after inspections.

4. The Consistency And Quality Of Inspection Teams In The Ofsted Inspection Process 4.1 As addressed in section 3, the Council has concerns about the consistency and quality of inspections. Interpretation of the inspection framework is variable and tends to be driven by the focus of the lead inspector. Headteachers have reported that the quality of inspectors is improving but this is not necessarily reﬂected across Children’s Services. 4.2 Arranging inspections is time consuming and places a signiﬁcant amount of stress on the service in addition to their business as usual activities. Short notice inspections are sensible approach to reducing the burden placed on providers but need to be matched by high quality inspection teams and preparations from Ofsted. During one recent inspection of a council service the inspection began with two inspectors, one then withdrew and was replaced by two others, two more then withdrew so the inspection concluded with a single inspector. Inspected services need to be dealt with in a professional manner and such inconsistency adds unnecessary stress and uncertainty. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w79

5. The Weight Given To Different Factors Within The Inspection Process 5.1 Some services, such as fostering and adoption, are highly regulated and highly technical. We have concerns that inspectors can be unduly inﬂuenced by the latest fad or training course they have attended and as such can over-emphasise the importance of particular aspects. 5.2 In relation to schools, as a Council we wholeheartedly support improvement in attainment—we have committed to supporting schools to raise attainment so that 75% are achieving 5 A*-C grades, including English and Maths at GCSE level by 2012. To do this, from this year, we have given each secondary school 60k to use as they wish to help them achieve this. Yet we recognise that the quality of teaching is fundamental to this and should underpin the inspection process. Inspections should also focus on pupil progress and achievement in addition to attainment. More focus could be given to Leadership and Management and social development of pupils, particularly in schools where problems may have been identiﬁed. Focus on Every Child Matters outcomes could be reduced. 5.3 As previously mentioned there is rightly a focus on safeguarding in all types of inspection. To ensure the effectiveness of inspection, particularly in schools, Ofsted should consider employing specialist inspectors to carry out these aspects of inspection.

6. Whether Inspection Of All Organisations, Settings And Services To Support Children’s Learning And Welfare Is Best Conducted By A Single Inspectorate 6.1 We are yet to be convinced that a single inspectorate is the best arrangement for inspection of all services and settings relating to children’s welfare and learning. This is borne out by our concerns with the quality and focus of the inspection teams particularly in non-education settings. We believe that the current regime lacks pragmatism, requisite hands on experience, and an appreciation of local context. Locality based inspectorates may help to improve the quality of inspection. Better use of other evidence bases either held by local authorities or other relevant bodies and improved engagement either via meetings or surveys with local stakeholders, would also help to provide improved local accountability. 6.2 Furthermore, inspection must be linked to a wider recognition of the importance of transparency. In Westminster, we are introducing our own ‘school report cards’ to provide as much information as possible to parents about their local schools to help them make informed decisions. Information must be accessible and easy to understand. The Ofsted website in its current format does not support such transparency.

7. The Role Of Ofsted In Providing An Accountability Mechanism For Schools Operating With Greater Autonomy 7.1 As a Council we fully support increasing choice for parents and children as well as flexibility within the school system. Within Westminster we have four academies and North Westminster will host one of the first tranche of free schools, starting in Sept 2011. 7.2 We have some cause for concern over the effectiveness of Ofsted in providing an appropriate accountability mechanism for schools which do operate with greater autonomy. From recent experience we have found that acting upon the concerns of parents, pupils, governors and staff, to help academies improve, can be difficult in the current system. When a school is considered to be failing, action needs to be swift and decisive. We feel that this is not the case at the moment and more could be done to tap into local intelligence and resources to support any intervention. 7.3 With good relationships with our schools and local communities we quickly become aware when a school may be experiencing problems. To ensure that Ofsted works as an effective accountability mechanism, they should work closely, whether it is formally or informally with local authorities as well as the schools themselves, to ensure problems can be picked up as quickly as possible and dealt with. The introduction of locality based teams, which cover a cluster of authorities, would help to counteract this problem. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by National Children’s Bureau (NCB) Summary NCB recognises Ofsted’s role in an equitable system to present graded judgments on school performance based on common criteria. NCB supports the prevailing view of school effectiveness that includes measures to promote pupil well-being and safeguarding. NCB views the purpose of inspection as contributing to a school understanding better its strengths and weaknesses in order to improve its performance across the full range of functions. Ofsted plays a valuable role in supporting continuous school improvement. One purpose of its inspection function is to ensure accountability to Parliament. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Education Committee: Evidence

In summary, NCB recommends: — Maintaining a role for Ofsted in making judgments on all schools whilst concentrating resources on the schools that are in greatest need. — A commitment to inspection that addresses the full range of functions, including attending to pupil well-being and safeguarding. — Exercising caution in allowing exemptions from inspection for high performing schools but, if this becomes necessary, publishing a deﬁnitive list of “trigger” factors that act as a safeguard against complacency if the frequency of inspection in such schools is to be reduced signiﬁcantly. — Ensuring that all schools are subject to clear and transparent evaluation and monitoring if removed from the cycle of Ofsted inspection, and that such monitoring includes coverage of safety and well-being. — Retaining a single inspectorate to cover the services that support schools in helping children to learn. Introduction NCB is the leading support and development body for the children and young people’s sector in England. We bring together agencies from the voluntary, statutory and private sectors, across early years, education, health, public care, youth justice, and other agencies meeting the needs of children, young people and families, including play. As such NCB endorses in full the submissions presented by Play England to the Select Committee. In the terms of the role and purpose of Ofsted, NCB’s areas of interest include: — The purpose of inspection — The role for Ofsted in assisting school improvement and impact — The advantages of a single inspectorate

1. Purpose of Inspection 1.1 The role of the inspectorate is to measure the standard of education that our schools provide for all children according to universal criteria and report on it to Parliament in the public interest. NCB recognises that assessing school effectiveness, achieving accountability, and contributing through assessment to improving effectiveness are central processes of inspection. Currently that assessment is based on a universal set of criteria, acting as a comparative tool through which teachers and parents can analyse school performance. This presents two fundamental questions—what makes a school effective and how can an inspection adequately assess that effectiveness? 1.2 Since 2005, Ofsted’s school inspection framework has reflected a widening view of school effectiveness, placing emphasis on so-called non-academic outcomes that play an essential role in raising standards of attainment, increasing attendance and ensuring the well-being of all children in school. These outcomes include well-being, community cohesion, equality of opportunity and play. These are the outcomes that enable children to more effectively access their education and, consequently, to learn better. 1.3 Recommendation: Inspection criteria should continue to take account of non-academic factors, in particular pupil well-being. NCB rejects the narrowing of the inspection focus called for in some quarters28, seeing this as a reductionist and limiting view of education and of the process of schooling. Evidence shows that a pupil’s well-being can have a profound effect on their capacity, readiness and willingness to learn. Schools are the most obvious “universal service” for children and young people, and provide an important base for access to a range of services that pupils might need, whether or not they are provided on-site29. School staff generally know their pupils well, can play a role in identifying issues that may be affecting that child’s ability to learn and engage in their schooling, and can make sure those services are available to the pupil and, where appropriate, the pupil’s family. 1.4 A Children, Schools and Families Select Committee report on School Accountability, published in April 2010, acknowledged the essential role that pupil well-being should play in inspection and urged Ofsted to develop enhanced qualitative measures to capture a broader range of school activity in order to better analyse and attribute pupil well-being.30 NCB endorses the proposals put forward by the Select Committee to maintain the importance of well-being as a factor in inspection and urges the implementation of the recommendation to develop better means of assessing pupil well-being. 1.5 This focus on purely academic outcomes is also the justification behind proposals to stop altogether the inspection of high performing schools.31 It is true that Ofsted can do more to encourage schools to be creative 28 For example: Fazackerley, A, Wolf, R and Massey, A (2010) Blocking the Best: obstacles to new, independent state schools. Policy Exchange. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/BLOCKING_THE_BEST-HDS_Web.pdf 29 Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children’s Services (C4EO) (2009) Schools and communities research review 1: narrowing the gap in educational achievement and improving emotional resilience for children and young people with additional needs. http://www.c4eo.org.uk/themes/schools/educationalachievement/files/educational_achievement_research_review.pdf 30 Children, Schools and Families Select Committee (2010) From Baker to Balls: the foundations of the education system. Ninth report of session 2009/10. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/422/422.pdf 31 Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, Times Education Supplement, May 28 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w81

and produce evidence of self-evaluation, and that better performing schools should be allowed greater freedom to be innovative. However, NCB is not persuaded that this should be realised in a removal of these schools from the system of accountability. Ofsted should be permitted to adopt a suitably hands-off approach with schools that are performing well, whilst still retaining a clear and transparent monitoring role. 1.6 The proposed exemption for high performing schools presents three areas of concern for NCB: a. The potential loss of accountability for non-academic factors if removed as inspection categories. b. The removal entirely from Ofsted’s accountability framework c. An inadequate safety net to trigger inspection if purely based on academic outcomes. 1.7 Recommendation: Outstanding schools should be inspected with reduced frequency but not be exempt entirely from inspection. NCB recognises and agrees with the conclusions from the Select Committee report discussed in paragraph 1.4 regarding the frequency of inspection and allocation of resources. The report concluded that the frequency of inspection should be in recognition of a school’s current level of performance. Proposals to exempt outstanding schools ignore the continued need for accountability, even in outstanding schools, and centre their proposals purely on academic outcomes.32 1.8 NCB applauds the efforts of schools across the country to improve standards and gain outstanding status during inspections under difficult and challenging circumstances. However, NCB also recognises that school performance is not static and that accountability must stretch to a wide range of factors that takes into consideration pupil well-being, safety and community cohesion. An exemption from all inspection limits this accountability. Even more concerning, however, is the thinktank proposal that the trigger for inspection in a previously outstanding school would simply be linked to “performance data indicating a drop in standards.”33 1.9 Recommendation: A comprehensive list of trigger factors must be in place in the event of exemption for outstanding schools. If these proposals were carried forward, it is feasible that a school that manages to maintain academic standards but is performing poorly in respect of pupil well-being would remain uninspected and unaccountable indefinitely. It is also feasible that the degree to which a drop should occur before inspection would allow a school’s standards to slide significantly before an inspection would be triggered. If outstanding schools are to be exempt from inspection until a trigger point is met, NCB proposes that there should be a range of trigger factors in place including: a. A drop in academic standards—for example a drop of more than 5% b. The loss of a headteacher/member of senior management team (SMT) since outstanding schools are often dependent on having outstanding professionals in key posts c. High staff turnover d. Complaint lodged by parents—requiring some changes made to Ofsted’s current complaints system where, in some [undelineated] circumstances, parental complaints can lead to an inspection being brought forward or, very rarely, an immediate inspection34 In addition, there needs to be ongoing support for developing self-evaluation processes and light monitoring of those. 1.10 Recommendation: Ofsted should continue to monitor any independent school inspection consultancy/agency. Exempt schools may also be given the option of employing independent consultants as part of a self-evaluation process. When comparing this proposal to the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) that currently manages inspections in some private schools, NCB is concerned about the implications of creating an unregulated school inspection sector. At present, the ISI is monitored by Ofsted, providing some level of regulation, guidance and consistency in the inspection process. If school inspection consultancies are given free rein to offer their services to schools outside of any accountability structure this removes any base level of consistent evaluation. The loss of this comparative tool would make it impossible for parents to make informed choices about a school’s performance as each school would base its performance on contrasting sets of criteria. In the context of well-being or pupil safety, for example, there would be no guarantee that they were being evaluated correctly, if at all.

2. School improvement and impact 2.1 NCB acknowledges the role that Ofsted plays in contributing to improving school effectiveness. In widening the view of what constitutes school effectiveness, Ofsted has ensured that academic outcomes are placed in context, with the positive impact of supporting factors such as well-being recognised. NCB also recognises the contribution that Ofsted can make in assisting schools to develop effective self-evaluation processes. 2.2 NCB also acknowledges that Ofsted does not necessarily have an active role to play in school improvement and welcomes the opportunity for schools to explore innovative and creative practices to raise 32 Op cit Fazackerley, A, Wolf, R and Massey, A (2010) 33 Ibid, p64 34 Ofsted (2008) Complaints to Ofsted about schools: guidance for parents. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and- guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Complaints-to-Ofsted-about-schools-guidance-for-parents . cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Education Committee: Evidence

and maintain standards. NCB supports the Select Committee’s conclusions that schools should take ownership of their own improvement.3

2.3 Recommendation: Ofsted should encourage schools to be creative and produce evidence of self- evaluation processes. NCB has outlined in Section 1 its concerns about the removal of Ofsted as a monitoring body for high performing schools, and reiterates our belief that Ofsted has a role in contributing to effectiveness in all schools. The form that contribution takes should vary depending on a school’s level of performance, but all schools should be assisted in developing internal mechanisms to identify problems and develop solutions. The goal for any school should be to reach a stage where Ofsted’s role becomes one of light monitoring and support via embedded self-evaluation processes.

2.4 Recommendation: School improvement should not be based solely on academic outcomes. In particular, quality of teaching and learning should be given equal weight to test results and derivative measures. An essential role that Ofsted observation performs is to assess the atmosphere and environment in a school. In Section 1, we raised our concerns regarding a narrowing view of school effectiveness to focus purely on academic outcomes. The same is true for Ofsted’s role in school improvement, particularly in schools performing poorly on pupil well-being or conversely in schools performing well in this area but struggling to improve their academic results. Narrowing the criteria for improvement will encourage schools to focus on attaining grades to the detriment of all other considerations, including the overall educational experience of their pupils.

3. Single inspectorate

3.1 NCB believes that the services that support schools in helping children learn should continue to be monitored by a single inspectorate. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Buckinghamshire County Council

1. Executive Summary

1.1. Buckinghamshire County Council believes that there continues to be a role for a system of validating school effectiveness using an independent inspectorate and deploying trained professionals to undertake this work. For the local authority, inspection has become an important part of validating and holding schools to account for their actions and their impact on children and young people. The current system provides information for parents and public and empowers school improvement. Inspection of schools has a measure of public confidence in its external and public validation of the quality of education being provided and it would be difficult to see how Government could remove this mechanism for parents to evaluate the quality of education provided by schools and others in an area. Ofsted’s independence from government allows it to comment on local and national government actions and politically sensitive subjects with a neutral focus on the impact on outcomes for children and young people. This independence is an important part of the confidence that consumers of education have.

1.2. We would argue that the role of Ofsted cannot be considered in isolation. Ofsted, SIPs, Local Authorities and School Improvement Services all provide elements of support and challenge to schools moving weak schools to satisfactory; good schools to outstanding and challenging outstanding schools to remain so. It may be considered that high performing schools could thrive given a lighter touch and greater freedom, but if simultaneously we withdraw or seriously reduce the focus or frequency of Ofsted, reduce or remove the School Improvement Partner (SIP) and allow schools to leave the local authority, then it could be a swing from over- monitoring to total de-regulation. This also links to a weakness in the outcomes to inspection when this local intelligence held by the local authority is underused in helping to evaluate schools.

1.3. We would also urge Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) to ensure that only those judgements key to the standards, personal development and wellbeing of children and young people and the efﬁcient leadership and management of schools are allowed to be a focus for the evaluation schedule and framework for inspection.

This submission has been written by the School Improvement Service for Buckinghamshire County Council. Consultation with school improvement advisers and school improvement partners who are also Ofsted Inspectors gives this response an up-to-date understanding of both the impact of inspection on schools and the process for inspection.

Main Submission

In considering its submission Buckinghamshire County Council has sought to respond under the headings in the remit for the inquiry. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w83

2. What the purposes of inspection should be 2.1. The framework for inspection should continue to provide a monitoring and evaluation function which enables all those involved in outcomes for children and young people to ensure that schools are transparently and equally compared and evaluated. 2.2. To challenge underperformance and provide a closely monitored process for inadequate schools. 2.3. Through subject and aspect inspections to highlight and disseminate good practice. 2.4. Published reports help to celebrate the hard work and professionalism of schools. 2.5. Inspection needs to continue to focus on raising standards through a focus on data and tracking. 2.6. To continue to contribute to the statutory obligation to provide for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural outcomes pupils. 2.7. To provide a trusted, clear and universal point of reference for parents and the local community on the quality of education and care of children and young people regardless of the setting, foundation or title of the provision. 2.8. To maintain its independence in providing an external conversation with schools and schools leaders about their schools.

3. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 3.1. Ofsted has been responsible for initiating mechanisms in schools to provide for self-evaluation routines and for measuring their impact on children and young people. 3.2. It has developed the focus and techniques of classroom observation and the scrutiny of pupils’ work to judge the quality of teaching and teachers. This has subsequently transferred to school leaders to use as an effective leadership and management strategy. 3.3. Through a focus on outcome data, Ofsted has introduced the idea of data collection and the development of tracking to measure pupil progress. 3.4. It has provided high quality professional development through engagement with independent inspectors who bring a view of effective practice from a range of schools and settings. 3.5. Inspection provides a focus for local authorities on schools causing concern through categorisation and Section Eight monitoring. 3.6. The reports by HMCI have informed and developed governmental responses to education and children and young people.

4. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 4.1. The 2010 framework has honed practice to ensure a suitable impact on school improvement. 4.2. The current schedule provides a highly effective self-evaluation mechanism for schools which empowers school leaders to evaluate and improve provision for children and young people. 4.3. The system is reliant on high quality inspectors who bring a professional knowledge of learning and of children to their work. 4.4. We believe that Ofsted has been over-responsive to and driven by governmental demands. This reduces the conﬁdence schools have in the process and the genuine impact on children and young people. 4.5. This also creates unintended outcomes where the drive by central government does not translate into the school setting or has unintended consequences on inspection outcomes; for example the issues over the safeguarding judgement in the early months of the 2010 schedule. 4.6. The continued thrust to provide efﬁcient and focused reports for a parental audience in a suitably short timescale is good.

5. The consistency and quality of inspection teams 5.1. The provision of a well-written and effective schedule for inspection ensures schools’ experiences are broadly the same. 5.2. The provision of a shared data set (RAISEOnline) ensures a sharper focus on outcomes for children and young people by school leaders. 5.3. An external perspective through independent inspectors ensures a level playing ﬁeld for most schools. 5.4. Most inspections are well run. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Education Committee: Evidence

5.5. A weakness is the lack of familiarity between ‘team’ members on inspection and a perceived need to establish a relationship but this does ensure that teams evaluate accurately and check against adherence to the framework. 5.6. There are concerns of the narrow evidence base for judgements on small schools with a single inspector. 5.7. In a minority of cases contact with local intelligence through the local authority has not been sought and a few judgements do not hold up well to scrutiny across neighbouring schools with similar performances.

6. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 6.1. Schools find the pre-inspection process useful in the external view achieved through the production of a Pre-Inspection Briefing. 6.2. We are content with the focus on outcomes and the key skills of English and mathematics for older pupils. 6.3. Early Years and Foundation Stage outcomes are intertwined with outcomes for well-being and Every Child Matters (ECM) and we would be reluctant to see the focus for the evaluation of very young pupils to become only those for academic measures. 6.4. It is important to continue to inspect the whole child and to celebrate pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. 6.5. The current focus on five ECM outcomes provides a useful focus on the healthy and safe outcomes for pupils. 6.6. It is continues to be important for someone to have the conversation with schools about the provision and impact on pupils’ healthy outcomes and understanding of risk. 6.7. Community engagement and the development of economic wellbeing is less universally understood across the various phases. 6.8. ECM5 is an insecure judgement for very young pupils. 6.9. Some of the current judgements in Leadership and Management are unnecessary as standalone judgements but could be integrated as part of the wider expectations for leadership and subsumed in the schedule’s designations: — Partnerships could be subsumed in the judgement of engagement with parents by an extension to the groups for engagement; — Community cohesion is not a primary function of schools; — Equalities and discrimination are a subset of the ‘communicating ambition judgement’ for all leaders and managers; — Value for money rarely adds to the information on a school and frequently simply matches the overall effectiveness grade. 6.10. We recognise the weighting given to safeguarding but we were concerned at the inadequate manner of its introduction as a ‘limiting’ judgement. The ‘retreat’ from the stated position of not accepting any safeguarding errors within months of the new framework launch undermined the importance of this area and the overall confidence in Ofsted. 6.11. However we would be very concerned if safeguarding was not a feature for the inspection of all schools, academies and settings. 6.12. We are not clear of the need to provide a separation of judgements for EYFS or the Sixth Form and feel these could be folded into the common inspection schedule. 6.13. We are unclear why the progress for pupils with SEND should be given precedence and a separate judgement over, for example, EAL pupils or ethnic groups.

7. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 7.1. We believe that there should be a common inspectorate for all settings which provide learning for children and young people regardless of their foundation, phase or title.

8. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 8.1. Schools’ autonomy is greater than ever but this brings with it a need to maintain a system for parents and others to evaluate the effectiveness of provision across all types of setting. 8.2. We would be very concerned at a system which was designed to evaluate schools to different schedules or systems because of their foundation. Parental conﬁdence in a system for comparing the education market is vital. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w85

8.3. The continued process of inspectors visiting schools remains an important part of holding them to account. It is our experience that very few school leaders learned their skills in ways other than in face-to-face conversations with education professionals including advisers, SIPs and inspectors, who work as ambassadors to disseminate effective practice. In-service training is not sufﬁcient and it is our experience that schools do not improve without the double encouragement of professional advice and the rigour of inspection. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Tony Lau-Walker, Chief Executive of Eastleigh College and Chair of the Windsor Group of Colleges 1. Executive Summary 1.1 In further education, especially where employers and adult learners predominate, Ofsted represents poor value for money with its slow and burdensome inspection regime ill-suited to promote improvement and focussed too much on full time in-college courses for 16–18 year old learners. 1.2 It makes no attempt to use other performance monitoring frameworks currently developed and used for commissioning or quality kitemarking, and does not attempt to recognise or enable the movement to peer review within the sector. 1.3 There is a need for the reform of Ofsted’s over generalised framework which tries to be all things to all providers as it tries to cope with a much expanded portfolio of responsibility. 1.4 A regime of shorter curriculum speciﬁc visits ‘little and often’ would provide better information to guide consumers in their take up of FE. This approach would provide energy to the movement towards rigorous self development in the sector and provide current benchmarking standards that are no longer available. 1.5 To mirror the practice in higher education Ofsted should focus their judgements on curriculum provision rather than the providers to better inform the public regarding the standards they can expect when making their choices.

2. Introduction 2.1 The following commentary is provided speciﬁcally on the role of Ofsted in inspecting General Further Education colleges (GFEs). As chief executive of an established Beacon college which serves its local community well and has an extensive employer engagement provision, and with experience of work as an additional inspector the observations contained in the following paragraphs is a personal observation based on work with a large number of other GFEs in quality development and peer review. 2.2 Ofsted is one of several inspection regimes experienced by the author in the past thirty years. Prior to incorporation colleges were subject to irregular inspections, producing private reports shared between college and local authority, and were not very successful in either raising standards or identifying ineffective institutions. FEFC introduced a regime which was regular and effective at identifying major thematic issues for the sector to address—such as Governance & Management, Quality of Outcomes and Learner Support. This regime saw itself as having a responsibility to assist colleges with improvement through the identiﬁcation of college inspectors to oversee ongoing improvements between inspections.

3. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 3.1 Introduced in 2001 Ofsted refocused the inspection priorities to the quality of teaching and learning— what happened in the classroom or workshop—and undertook a tight four year cycle of visits, but did not see itself as having a direct relationship with colleges in terms of improvement. After one cycle of inspections the focus shifted back to the more generic cross college themes that had dominated the FEFC regime, and spent less time inspecting the learners’ experience. The final iteration of the Ofsted inspection, based on a six year cycle, introduced increased bureaucratic complexities with 274 areas to question as it tried to merge the generic inspection of the institution with the curriculum inspections it had started with in the first cycle. 3.2 The final round of changes introduced such complexity that the impact of the inspections has become devalued, overly bureaucratic, apparently politically motivated and unresponsive to the key aspects of the further education agenda such as employer engagement and local responsiveness. General further education colleges strongly committed to employer engagement have had their inspections more focused on safeguarding, while sixth form colleges have had their adult provision discounted or ignored during inspections and reporting. Hence the growth of additional inspection frameworks applying to the sector—Framework for Excellence instigated by the funding agency to enable better performance monitoring, and Training Quality Standards to address employer engagement directly. If the Government want colleges to show responsiveness to local needs as part of a single line adult funding stream there is likely to be a further quality mark or regulatory body. Despite Ofsted’s existence the sector has been seen to need a multiple system of regulation/quality kitemarks. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Education Committee: Evidence

3.3 The capacity of the funding agency has grown substantially to effectively monitor performance through the system of Minimum Levels of Performance (MLP) to commission and decommission provision, and to comparatively grade through the Framework for Excellence using direct student and employer inputs, and following up outcomes with progression checks. In addition the Training Quality Standard assessments examine directly the effectiveness of colleges to engage with employers and the Sector Skills Councils. If these mechanisms are to survive then Ofsted needs to develop a low cost approach to the inspection of delivered curriculum, going back to their original sampling of the learner experience, grading provision instead of institutions.

4. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 4.1 College improvement under the current Ofsted scheme is an indirect and imprecise outcome. The Common Inspection Framework (CIF) is an unwieldy and generic tool which covers all types of further education provider. As such the CIF is not suited to effective diagnosis of improvement needs other than in a most general sense. Without a specific framework designed to be fit for purpose to differentiate between types of FE providers and suit their mission it is inevitable that general recommendations for improvement are the outcomes of a very expensive process. 4.2 In fear of adverse publicity from the published inspection report General Further Education colleges (GFEs) need to work carefully to interpret the generic framework to focus on inspectors’ priorities rather than the priorities of the learners and their employers. Improvement comes from direct and relevant performance monitoring rather than a general review and the CIF suffers from this lack of specificity to the local need and employer engagement mission of the GFE. Ofsted has not reduced poor performance in the sector as comprehensively as the annual monitoring of MLP and commissioning through contract variation based on results. 4.3 If Ofsted is to contribute directly and cost effectively to the improvement agenda it needs to adopt a more flexible approach that addresses curriculum delivery in the context of the specific learners rather than generalizing a framework from a 16–18 college-based learner context across all providers. It needs to become part of a system of performance management and quality control by recognizing and making use of other quality frameworks and performance monitoring, and most importantly, it needs to recognize the mission focus of the provider being inspected.

5. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 5.1 In carrying out its work Ofsted tends to focus on full time 16–18 learners almost exclusively—in a college of 18,000 learners the 1,800 which are 16–18s tend to get the vast majority of inspection time and the bulk of the inspection report. This prejudice has been evident since the adsorption of the Adult Inspectorate, and is a product of seeking to use a single framework approach to all those sectors for which it is responsible. In trying to create a simplified response to all its increased responsible areas it has lessened its impact and relevance for GFEs. While individual inspectors can make an effort to give the proportionate weighting to reflect the individual provider this rarely happens and the prejudice towards full time college-based courses predominates. This bias or tendency is also reflected in the text of reports.

6. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 6.1 Ofsted produces a single grade for overall performance for the provider. This would be relevant if each provider—as nurseries or schools are expected to do—provides the same service to the community it serves. This assumption is not accurate or relevant for the FE sector where diversity rather than homogeneity is the distinct characteristic. The mission of a sixth form college is not the same as that of a GFE. Moreover, the range and diversity of a GFE differs from one to another. The requirement to reduce to a single grade is, therefore, misleading—because it suggests or rather insists that one can be compared to another—and unhelpful. In fact there is no need to adopt or continue this approach, an alternative already works perfectly well post- sixteen and that operates in Higher Education. 6.2 The system operating in Higher Education monitors and grades the provision and not the provider. Hence there is no inspection regime that grades Oxford or Imperial College as ‘outstanding’ because it is their provision which is assessed not the institution as a whole. In the FE sector the obsession of treating colleges like schools has lead to the single grade concept and in the context of creating better consumer information to aid choice this is dysfunctional. Consumers’ choice of provision should be informed by inspection at the moment it is not. As long as the provider is graded then the information is partial and imprecise. An ‘Outstanding’ college does not have all their provision at that standard, some of it will be ‘outstanding’ but some will be only ‘good’ and some may even be only ‘satisfactory’. In the same way, a ‘Good’ provider likewise may have some ‘outstanding’ provision, some ‘good’ and some ‘satisfactory’. For example, last year Ofsted inspected 54 GFEs, of which two were graded ‘outstanding’ overall and two were graded ‘inadequate’. This is a simple picture but a misleading one for the potential consumer as there were 17 outstanding curriculum grades awarded—and neither outstanding college gained outstanding in each of the curriculum areas inspected. The Government’s desire to provide smarter information about performance is not aided by Ofsted’s current approach. Indeed, Ofsted, by giving overwhelming prominence to generic grades like ‘overall performance’, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w87

‘capacity to improve’ and ‘leadership and management’ at the expense of shorter more frequent curriculum judgments is being unhelpful and poor value for money for the consumer.

7. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 7.1 The conclusion of the arguments expressed above lead to the conclusion that GFEs focused on serving local needs and meeting the needs of employers and economic prosperity are poorly served by a single framework bureaucracy. The generalised framework of assessment is only partially relevant to these colleges and judgements are made without full and proper consideration of the whole mission of the provider. The loss of the Adult Inspectorate is unfortunate for the providers commissioned by the SFA and a reform of Ofsted should reﬂect the diversity of needs from the two commissioning bodies—YPLA and SFA. 7.2 Without creating a new body a simpliﬁed inspection framework could be created that provides short sharp inspections of provision—not providers—as the good practice visits have done in the past, while working in partnership with the commissioning bodies who use MLP information to shape provision on an annual basis. Such an approach would cost less yet it would serve the improvement agenda better. Inspections that are ‘Little and Often’ and part of a network of monitoring are going to have more impact in stimulating an improvement culture in the sector than ‘big and infrequent’. Different parts of the college will be inspected frequently replacing the great upheaval every six years. Such an approach will enable colleges to drive their own improvement providing them with relevant and current benchmarks of good practice.

8. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 8.1 The funding agencies—especially the SFA—have developed their commissioning role so that naturally available data is used annually to monitor and manage performance. Hence accountability is embedded in this process and is exercised annually. Ofsted’s long cycle of visits cannot be argued to assist or enhance this process. Indeed, the commissioning practice can be seen to diminish the need for the heavily bureaucratic approach of Ofsted. Likewise, colleges have ‘grown up’ and now take a more rigorous and active responsibility for their own improvement. The role of Ofsted should be transformed to reﬂect these parallel developments and, for the vast majority of colleges there should be more focus on enabling self improvement and peer review. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The Royal Society of Chemistry 1. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and the largest organisation in Europe for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a worldwide network of members and an international publishing business, the RSC’s activities span education, conferences, science policy and the promotion of chemistry to the public. 2. The RSC welcomes the opportunity to submit a response to the House of Commons Education Committee Inquiry on the role and performance of Ofsted and wishes to emphasise the following points: (a) Inspection of schools should play an instrumental role in achieving improvement both at the individual school level and nationally, both by enabling the spread of better practice alongside inspection outcomes contributing to the development of national strategies. (b) The inspection process has a role in ensuring the accountability of all schools in terms of standards of teaching and learning but the system requires serious review to insure that there is agreement across all stakeholders about what is expected from the education system and what indicators can be used to gather evidence of success against these expectations. (c) The emphasis on published results as a component in initial assessments of schools should be reduced.

What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 3. Inspections have a role in ensuring the accountability of educational establishments but fundamentally should be instrumental in the improvement and advancement of these establishments. 4. With the growth and evolution of our educational infrastructure it is essential to maintain a national, strategic view and a measure of the quality of teaching and learning in schools. However, in order to achieve this, the deﬁnitions of quality teaching and learning must be revisited and reviewed with “buy-in” from all stakeholders, so that not only best practice, but better practice can be recognised and shared. The RSC recommends that, in the inspection process, emphasis should also be placed on the provision of qualitative and quantitative feedback to schools that will drive improvement and the spread of ‘better practice’. Regular feedback to inform Government policies and strategies is also vital but the RSC believes that this would be more effectively achieved by a system of random sampling of schools using spot check inspections. 5. Efforts should be made to maximise the effectiveness of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) through feedback of better practice and an increased inspection focus on the provision and effectiveness of support at both the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Education Committee: Evidence

training establishment and during placement in schools. The expectations of the outcomes of ITT need to be clearly defined, so that appropriate indicators can be developed for inspection. 6. It is essential that inspections continue to contain a subject specific component carried out by appropriate subject experts so as to ensure that subject specific challenges to teaching and learning are identified and tackled efficiently. The RSC suggests that, in order to provide vital evidence on a national scale, carrying out inspections of science subjects should have an emphasis on: — Subjects being taught by specialist teachers; — Evidence that teachers have access to, and frequently use, appropriate lab facilities and equipment to integrate high quality practical work into the curriculum; — A good balance of theoretical and practical work taking place; — The delivery of a coherent science curriculum that showcases the exciting and relevant nature of the sciences; — Inspirational teaching through curriculum innovation and creativity within the demands of the appropriate specification; — Adequately preparing students for higher education (HE) and employment.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement

7. The RSC strongly believes that the inspection process should be instrumental in achieving an overall improvement in the standards of education in the school involved—in the current system this is not demonstrably the case. In order to improve the impact of the inspection process the RSC recommends that teacher feedback becomes central to the inspection process. The RSC is concerned that the time taken by schools to prepare for inspection detracts from teaching and learning and would recommend a move towards spot check inspections which would provide a less contrived picture of the school’s provision.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work

8. Subject speciﬁc inspections are vital in maintaining standards in relation to the unique needs of each subject and such inspections should be carried out by subject experts with considerable teaching experience. It is essential that the inspectorate is externally reviewed to ensure that appropriate specialism is available within the inspectorate. The RSC recommends that greater collaboration between Ofsted and the professional bodies should become central to further development of subject speciﬁc inspections; this will help to ensure that across all subjects students receive the highest standard of education that will prepare them for both higher education and employment. 9. The RSC suggests that feedback mechanisms to teachers should be reviewed in order to increase the impact of inspections on school improvement and ensure that meaningful dialogue occurs.

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

10. To promote consistency and quality in inspections, Ofsted needs to maintain a balance of specialism across all subjects. It is essential that inspectors have regular opportunities for professional development and that this presents further opportunities for Ofsted to work with professional bodies like the RSC. It is equally important to monitor the standard and quality of the inspection teams regularly to ensure high standards are maintained and to identify areas in need of improvement. The RSC recommends that a review of the monitoring of the Ofsted inspectorate is carried out to ensure the accountability of inspectors.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process

11. While the RSC understands there is a need to make initial assessments of schools there is concern that an assessment which contains a focus on published results, along with attendance records and pupil and parent views, may contribute to the pressure on schools to ‘teach to the test’. Whilst it is important to be able to monitor and compare schools’ progress, the RSC is concerned that league tables and the tie-in between inspection grading and published results may have a restrictive impact on the nature of curriculum delivery and innovation in the classroom. The RSC strongly believes that the inspection process should foster and encourage innovation and creativity in curriculum delivery.

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

12. Independent of whether a single inspectorate remains, or whether an alternative model is developed, it is imperative that the school inspections facilitate the improvement of the teaching and learning environments offered to pupils within schools as well as ensuring accountability. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w89

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 13. With increasing autonomy for schools, ensuring accountability becomes essential. The RSC seeks reassurance that, as the diversity of the school system increases all pupils will continue to engage with a broad, balanced and engaging curriculum in the sciences, and that there is an accountability process in place to ensure this does occur in each school.

Looking forward 14. The RSC strongly believes that the first stage of review of the inspection system should involve a dialogue between all stakeholders to establish the expectations of the education system and appropriate indicators that could provide evidence of achievement against these expectations. This clear, agreed view of expectations would provide a basis for ensuring that national assessment and board examinations, initial teacher training, teacher professional development and the inspection system can all deliver against the same framework. The RSC suggests that a random survey system on schools, involving spot checks, would reduce the bureaucratic burden on schools and provide a clearer picture on a national level. The RSC also suggests that the provision of a simple system by which groups of parents can seek for advice and help if a sizeable number feel that a school has a significant problem would be of benefit to the inspection system. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Professor Dame Julia Higgins FRS, Chair, The Advisory Committee of Mathematics Education The Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME) is pleased to offer its evidence to the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. ACME is an independent committee based at the Royal Society and operating under its auspices, with a remit to provide advice on issues affecting 5–19 mathematics education in England. Our submission is therefore limited to the effect of Ofsted on mathematics in schools and colleges. ACME would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the following points, which it feels are pertinent to this inquiry and should be pursued further with Ofsted:

Generic versus subject-specific approaches 1. In considering Ofsted’s performance the Committee should distinguish carefully between general inspections (Section Five of the Education Act 2005) carried out by private contractors and subject- specific surveys carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI). Section Five inspections are required to be generic and encompass matters such as pupil welfare and atmosphere, with inspection of teaching and learning focused on data analysis and moderation of schools’ own self-evaluation. Ofsted rightly supplements the Section Five regime with a tailored survey of subject teaching and produces reports on its overall findings. 2. Subject-specific reports such as Understanding the Score35 provide unique and essential information on the state of mathematics teaching in England which is not readily available from any other source, and on the basis of which an agenda can be set for national improvements. Understanding the Score was particularly informative and echoed ACME’s views of the current state of mathematics education. Subject surveys in general highlight strengths as well as areas for attention to ensure that best practice is built on where it is found. Headteachers often report how the feedback within one subject points them to similar areas for development in other areas that were not the subject of the original survey visit. The procedures for subject-specific surveys in schools could usefully be mirrored in Ofsted’s FE college subject inspections; the current regime considers mathematics only within a group of other sciences and psychology. 3. ACME’s interactions with HMI on mathematics matters are often positive and well-informed, creating an impression that the natural pedagogical requirements of different subjects are understood and well accounted for in Ofsted’s processes. In particular, ACME was pleased to contribute its thoughts to the draft subject-specific guidance notes for the subject-specific surveys36 and sees these as a valuable development which will promote improvements in mathematics teaching in schools. 4. However, we are concerned that, in practice, it is mainly the Section Five processes that have a lasting influence on the way that children are taught in schools. We are becoming increasingly concerned at an unfortunate gap developing between the practices encouraged through the subject-specific reports and those incentivised by the Section Five inspections37. This gap manifests itself in a mismatch between the assurances that we are given through HMI and Ofsted leaders and the messages we receive direct from teachers in schools. 35 Available from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic- reports/Mathematics-understanding-the-score 36 ACME’s response is available from http://acme-uk.org/news.asp?id=202 ; Ofsted’s draft guidance is at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/ Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Generic-grade-descriptors-and-draft-supplementary-subject- specific-guidance-for-inspectors-on-making-judgements-during-subject-survey-visits-to-schools 37 Teachers can be left with the impression that Ofsted demands a proliferation of written evidence, leading to the avoidance of setting mathematical tasks that do not produce this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Education Committee: Evidence

Negative effects of Section5 inspections 5. In particular, we believe that Section Five inspections are indirectly (and maybe inadvertently) encouraging the growth of early entry into GCSE mathematics through a focus on the number of qualifications that pupils achieve at grade C or above, rather than the learning engendered through them or how well prepared they are for the next stage. We are deeply concerned about the rise in entering entire cohorts one or more years early without regard to the effect it might have on their progression in the subject post-GCSE or their long-term attitudes to and confidence in mathematics. Blanket early entry can also depress grades, since those who achieve a grade C or higher are unlikely to be re-entered even if they might ultimately have been capable of achieving more—it seems particularly perverse that an Ofsted inspection could potentially prevent some pupils from reaching their full potential38. In contrast, Understanding the Score is clear on this issue—this is a powerful example of the gap between what is incentivised through Section Five inspection and the subject- specific messages from HMI. 6. ACME is also concerned about the extent to which Section Five inspectors are knowledgeable enough about mathematics pedagogy to comment on mathematics teaching in schools, particularly given the apparent wish to apply generic requirements to lesson formats. It can seem as though more attention is paid to lesson format than to the quality of student experience or of their learning. Moreover, we are aware of instances where feedback given through Ofsted inspections directly contradicts the training that mathematics teachers have received through research-based subject-specific CPD courses. We suggest that the Committee asks Ofsted how it can be confident that these discrepancies are not increasing, since the background of most inspectors is non-mathematics specialist. 7. Given the high stakes of Section Five inspection, we believe that school Senior Management Teams have a tendency to adopt Ofsted-style observational techniques for internal assessment between inspections, and that there can be a greater gap in these cases between the assessor’s understanding of what constitutes excellent subject-specific pedagogy and that of the teacher they are assessing. These factors do not serve to improve the quality of teaching of mathematics in schools and colleges. 8. Section Five inspections attempt to assess pupil progress within a lesson through short observations, but the study of mathematics does not always lend itself to instant enlightenment. While some students assimilate new ideas very quickly, others (including deep thinkers) may take longer to become confident with the use of a new concept and develop a deeper understanding. It is notable that the draft subject-specific criteria refer to the ‘development of conceptual understanding over time’ and the need to ‘persevere when faced with challenges’, which the Section Five inspections cannot hope to provide rigorous evidence about through a 20- minute observation.

Ofsted’s Future Role 9. As we indicate in paragraph one, Ofsted’s role is very broad. We believe that this has been a limiting factor to Ofsted’s performance, and we welcome the Government’s intention to relieve Ofsted of some of its ‘peripheral’ duties. A greater focus on pedagogy (with suitable account taken for diversity between subjects) and on educational progress (rather than on attainment of particular qualifications) could serve to improve Ofsted’s effectiveness greatly. 10. Ofsted’s role in reporting on the curriculum being used should be reinforced, particularly in the context of the increased freedoms being granted to schools in this area. Michael Gove’s recent letter to HM Chief Inspector39 suggests that there will be no scope for reporting on this, given the proposed headings of “quality of teaching, effectiveness of leadership, pupil behaviour and safety, and pupil achievement”. 11. With the demise of the National Strategies and the reduction in mathematics specialist support from Local Authorities, there is a risk that participation in mathematics-specific CPD may dwindle. We suggest that Ofsted could have a wider role to play in improving teaching in schools by placing more emphasis on reporting the extent to which teachers of mathematics have access to subject-specific CPD, and on whether the existing training days available in the year are used for anything other than generic purposes. 12. Good use can be made of the expertise that resides in Ofsted through using subject specialist HMIs to train Section Five inspectors; this can go some way to addressing the mixed messages being received. 13. HMI subject expertise should also be used to inform the development and conduct of qualifications, given the extent to which examinations can drive teaching. This could be achieved by extending Ofsted’s subject role to include HMI attendance at subject awarding body meetings, complementing Ofqual’s role as an independent regulator. October 2010

38 The Mathematical Association (www.m-a.org.uk) has recently set out its position on early entry at http://www.m-a.org.uk/jsp/ index.jsp?lnk=700. A focus on the number of qualiﬁcations achieved also has the effect of reducing time available for teaching and in-depth study. 39 Michael Gove’s letter to Christine Gilbert (HM Chief Inspector), 22 September 2010: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/ﬁles/ pdf/s/secretary%20of%20state%20to%20christine%20gilbert%2022%20sept.PDF cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w91

Memorandum submitted by Wandsworth Council Executive Summary (a) Local authorities can support this role more effectively with stronger powers of earlier intervention. (b) The majority of Ofsted inspection teams are fair, consistent and professional. However, variability can lead to inconsistent judgements (c) The annual assessment process introduced in 2009 has not been successful. (d) Having sufﬁcient, skilled, knowledgeable and well-trained inspectors is more important than the question of whether the scope of Ofsted’s remit is too broad.

Submission 1. Wandsworth Council is an Inner London local authority with an estimated population of around 288,000, of which nearly 60,000 are under 19. Local children’s services have been judged by Ofsted to be Outstanding in each of their last ﬁve annual assessments. 2. The local authority supports 537 settings, schools or services which are subject to Ofsted inspection. In addition to this Ofsted also undertakes: — an annual assessment of the effectiveness of Wandsworth children’s services as a whole; — an annual unannounced inspection of referral and assessment; — a three yearly announced inspection of safeguarding and looked after children services; — inspection of private fostering arrangements; and — a review of the effectiveness of any serious case reviews conducted in the borough.

The Purpose of Inspection 3. The main purpose of inspections should be to provide a mirror to organisations which supports them in the process of self-identiﬁcation of strengths and weaknesses. They should provide the opportunity to set minimum expectations and to communicate best practice to the professional community.

4. Organisations which fail to meet minimum standards often lack the necessary resources for self- improvement. In such circumstances, inspections should serve as a tool for directed improvement with clear expectations of what needs to change and how quickly.

The Impact of the Inspection Process on School Improvement 5. Ofsted inspections, when focused on the improving outcomes for children and young people, provide a valuable tool for Headteachers, school Governors and local authorities in assessing progress in individual schools. Where an inspection provides a school with clear recommendations for improvements this can help to focus the efforts of school staff. This is particularly, useful for schools which are “inadequate” or “satisfactory” and may lack the strong critical evaluation skills needed to drive self-improvement. For stronger schools the inspection process acts as a useful validation exercise. The difference in value to schools of inspection supports the logic that “outstanding” schools should face less frequent inspection than schools with poorer judgements— an argument which also holds true for other settings and organisations 6. Ofsted inspection is not the only mechanism to provide this support. Assisting schools in self-improvement is a role which Local Authorities fulfil outside of the Ofsted cycle of inspections. Strengthening the powers of early intervention in under-performing schools for Local Authorities would help to increase the numbers of schools which are seen to be Good or Outstanding. This would reduce the number of schools which Ofsted would need to inspect on a more regular basis and thereby reduce the overall workload of the organisation. 7. The Government is right to propose that local authorities should act as champions of local parents and children and that to give meaning to this role the relationship between local authorities and Ofsted should be firmed up in a number of important respects. First, when this local authority has a concern about a school it undertakes a joint review; at present there is no statutory power underpinning this approach. Yet it is effective as it nips problems in the bud before they escalate. This is a cost-effective, non-bureaucratic and relatively light touch way of promoting school improvement without the need for Ofsted intervention. On the rare occasions when this approach is insufficient local authorities can use formal warnings as a proportionate response. Again such an escalation generally works without the need for Ofsted intervention. Second, given the finite resources available to Ofsted and the importance of targeting them where needed, based on good local intelligence, it would be useful if there was an expectation that Ofsted would act on local authorities’ requests to inspect a particular setting. Such requests would be used only sparingly, but should ensure alignment between the regulatory functions of local authorities and Ofsted. In this context it would also be particularly helpful if Ofsted were more responsive to requests to de-register Inadequate child care providers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w92 Education Committee: Evidence

8. Inspection of any kind, whether focused on schools or other settings, inevitably leads to disruption and can have a negative impact on morale.

The Performance of Ofsted in Carrying Out its Work 9. The work of individual Ofsted teams is more often than not exemplary (see below). However, recent changes to the inspection framework and management of the annual assessment process have not been positive. 10. Ofsted’s inspections of schools have become too driven by raw data. Inspectors arrive at a school with pre-conceptions which are hard to shift. Even with a strong self evaluation some schools can feel that they are pre-judged and forced to fight that judgment. It would be preferably if inspectors arrived at schools with a hypothesis test rather than an opinion to select evidence to substantiate. 11. The mechanism which was put in place in 2009 to conduct the annual assessment, alongside the now defunct Comprehensive Area Assessment, is ineffective. It takes an overly formulaic approach to the judgement of the effectiveness of widely differing local authorities. The 2009 assessment process involved large amounts of ultimately fruitless work in preparing submissions for “green flags”. Ofsted’s request for a self-assessment document without clear guidance on how it would be used in reaching the final judgement added additional unnecessary work. The draft of the judgement letter was poorly constructed and the final letter to local authorities lacked the kind of recommendations which make a meaningful contribution to local improvement. Ofsted’s published evaluation of the 2009 assessment process highlighted some of the unease amongst local authorities, but the changes made to process were limited. The guidance document for 2010 was published late and included a poorly defined request for information on commissioned places. The Performance Profile used in both years has caused concern as it has relied on out-of-date information.

The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process 12. For the most part inspection teams are fair, consistent and professional. The majority of inspectors are specialists in their area and committed to supporting organisational development rather than just carrying out an assessment. However, variation naturally occurs between inspectors and inspection teams. This can lead to settings or organisations receiving different judgments despite ostensibly similar performance. 13. This inconsistency often surrounds interpretation of required documentation. Some inspectors seem more willing than others to take a sensible balance between evidence of improving outcomes and strict compliance with bureaucratic standards. There have been recent examples of inspectors revising judgments or raising areas for improvement which they have based on perceived recording errors as opposed to outcome measures.

The Weight Given to Different Factors Within the Inspection Process 14. The annual assessment of children’s services relies heavily on the application of a number of tests. These tests are primarily based on the results of Ofsted inspections rather than outcomes for children. In placing process ahead of outcomes Ofsted have moved away from the national policy trend. Weighting in such assessments should be clearly in favour of quantitative outcome measures. 15. Wandsworth Council strongly supports the objective use of outcome data to assess the effectiveness organisations. This is particularly true of inspections conducted through desk based exercise which do not allow inspectors the opportunity to learn first-hand about a local authority. Ofsted argue that self-assessment provides local authorities with the opportunity to provide context. However, without clear parameters or guidance on how self-assessment will be taken into account it is difficult to see how it can be effectively used in objective assessment. 16. School inspections rightly focus on pupil attainment as the key measure of school success. However, this approach needs to be more subtly applied. The attitude towards some pupils in schools, particularly those with special education needs, can be detrimentally affected by this focus on raw attainment data as many of these pupils are unlikely to reach the expected level of their peers in key stage assessments. A more nuanced approach to the weighting of attainment would also support a more accurate targeting of inspections. For schools which are judged to be “good” or “outstanding” the interim assessment needs to give sufficient weight to value-added scores and local views to ensure that schools previously determined to be high-performing have not begun to coast.

Whether Inspection of all Organisations, Settings and Services to Support Children’s Learning And Welfare is Best Conducted by a Single Inspectorate 17. The effectiveness of the inspections are not judged by the structure or make up of the organisation conducting them, but by the quality of the evaluative framework and the skills and knowledge of the inspectors involved. The primary question should therefore be whether there are enough inspectors available for the work which needs to be completed. 18. The secondary question of how these inspectors are organised should recognise that improving outcomes and safeguarding children and young people includes the work of a wide range of organisations. Services for children and young people at a local level are increasingly working in effective, integrated ways. A national cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w93

inspectorate that reﬂects this is more likely to understand the work of children’s services at a local level. However, this assumes that there are sufﬁcient inspectors, who have the necessary range of skills and knowledge, working for the organisation operating in a similarly integrated way.

The Role of Ofsted in Providing an Accountability Mechanism for Schools Operating with Greater Autonomy 19. Extension of the time between inspections for Good and Outstanding schools will make it harder for Ofsted to maintain effective accountability arrangements for schools with greater autonomy. 20. As the number of free schools and academies increases the proportion of pupils educated outside of establishments over which the local authority has a standards role will increase. Local authorities provide an effective challenge and support role for settings on a more regular basis than Ofsted. Substantial change, both positive and negative, is possible in a school over ﬁve years. It is possible that such change could go unnoticed by Ofsted in schools operating outside the ambit of local authorities. 21. For the majority of Good and Outstanding providers this will not be the case and they will, through high quality self-improvement, sustain their performance. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Rebecca Allen, Institute of Education, University of London and Simon Burgess, CMPO, University of Bristol Introduction 1. This submission relates to the following issues highlighted by the Select Committee: — “The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work; — The impact of the inspection process on school improvement” 2. We offer two pieces of evidence: — We report some simple statistics on the nature of schools failing their Ofsted inspections — We provide a preliminary report on some work in progress on the causal impact on a school’s progress of failing their Ofsted inspection. 3. This evidence is based on the authors’ analysis of data from the National Pupil Database (NPD) and Ofsted judgment data. This relates to secondary schools only, between the dates of 2003 and 2009 inclusive, this timing being determined by the existence of the NPD data. A few details on the data are provided at the end of this note.

Summary 4. Our preliminary results show that there is a positive causal effect of failing an Ofsted inspection on the school’s subsequent GCSE performance. This effect is statistically and substantively significant, but it appears to be transient. It peaks at two years after the inspection but has disappeared by four years after. 5. We show that schools in affluent neighbourhoods with few poor pupils and high scoring intakes are only rarely judged to be failing by Ofsted. By contrast, schools with less able intakes and greater poverty have much higher failure rates. The bulk of schools judged to be failing look like this. There are two possible interpretations of this: either that Ofsted is truly measuring the quality of teaching and learning in a school, in which case, these results show that the least effective schools are disproportionately to be found in poor neighbourhoods, serving poor, low ability pupils. Alternatively, it could be that Ofsted judgments are strongly influenced by actual grades achieved, rather than the quality of teaching per se. In this case, it would be important to consider what an Ofsted inspection adds to the information available through test score outcomes themselves.

Performanceof Ofstedin Carryingoutits Work 6. We consider the social profile of schools by Ofsted judgment, analyzing the distribution of judgments by the intake ability profile of schools, the level of poverty of the students in schools, and the level of neighbourhood poverty around schools. 7. This is informative on Ofsted’s performance because it provides some information on the outcomes of the process. 8. In Table 1 we tabulate the characteristics of schools judged to be failing in comparison to other schools inspected by Ofsted in 2009. In the first column, we see that the schools judged to be failing have similar average Keystage 2 (KS2) test scores to the next category up, but distinctly lower KS2 scores than the two higher categories. In column 2 we report the average number of students eligible for Free School Meals (FSM). There is a strong pattern showing that the schools judged to be failing have more poor students. Finally, in column 3 we report the neighbourhood poverty rates of schools. Specifically, this is the mean IDACI score of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w94 Education Committee: Evidence

students in the schools by Ofsted judgment. Again, students in failing schools tend to live in poorer neighbourhoods than students at schools deemed to be excellent. 9. We examine trends in these comparisons over time in Figures 1 to 3. While there is some variation from year to year, the gap in the mean characteristics of schools deemed to be failing and those deemed excellent remains largely constant. 10. We now cut the data the other way and compute the percentage of schools inspected that are judged to be failing, by the schools’ characteristics. The results are in Table 2. Column 1 shows that 9.7% of schools with student intake ability in the lowest quintile were judged to be failing, while only 2.3% of schools with the highest ability students were so judged. There is a similar gap looking at the poverty rate in schools: 8.3% of the poorest schools were failed relative to 2.2% of the least poor schools. This pattern is also reflected in the final column, looking at the schools’ neighbourhood poverty rates. 11. We examine whether these patterns have changed over time. Figures 4 to 6 display the trends for the lowest and highest quintiles of KS2 scores, school poverty and the poverty of the schools’ neighbourhoods. The failure rate of the most affluent and the high intake ability schools remains constant and low throughout this period, around 2% to 3% throughout. The failure rate of schools in the highest poverty quintile, and the lowest intake ability quintile, are more variable—all having a spike in 2006—but are uniformly much higher, averaging around 12%. 12. To summarise, our results show that schools in affluent neighbourhoods with few poor pupils and high scoring intakes are only rarely judged to be failing by Ofsted. By contrast, schools with less able intakes and greater poverty have much higher failure rates. The bulk of schools judged to be failing look like this. There are two interpretations of this: (a) Ofsted is truly measuring the quality of teaching and learning in a school. In this case, these results show that the least effective schools are disproportionately to be found in poor neighbourhoods, serving poor, low ability pupils. (b) Ofsted judgments are strongly influenced by actual grades achieved, rather than the quality of teaching per se. In this case, it would be important to consider what an Ofsted inspection adds to the information available through test score outcomes themselves. 13. Both of these interpretations are likely to be true in part. One of the criteria Ofsted use is the level of test scores achieved by the school. There are also a number of reasons why teaching effectiveness may be lower in schools in poorer neighbourhoods. For example, it may be that more effective teachers and headteachers are to be found more often in the more affluent schools.

The Impactofthe Inspection Processon School Improvement 14. In on-going work, we are analysing the consequences for subsequent GCSE exam performance of failing an Ofsted inspection. This directly addresses the question of the impact of Ofsted on school improvement. This paper will be finished and available in November. 15. There are a number of statistical difficulties in establishing the impact of failing an Ofsted inspection. First, we need to distinguish the true causal impact of that from simple mean reversion: that is, that the least effective schools in one year are almost bound to improve a little in the following year. This is not part of the effect of Oftsed on school improvement and needs to be taken out of the estimate. Second, the schools highlighted by Ofsted are necessarily going to be poorly performing, and are likely to remain quite poorly performing. We therefore need to take account of their circumstances and look for any improvement given those circumstances. 16. To deal with these issues, we need to compare schools that have just failed their Ofsted inspection with very similar schools who just passed. Accordingly, we adopt a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD), a well established identification technique in economics. The idea is to use as a “control” group for the failed schools the schools that only just passed their inspection. Details of the statistical procedure and the definition of the assignment variable for the discontinuity will be provided in the forthcoming paper. We also focus on changes in GCSE performance, not levels. This approach takes account of the fixed but unobservable characteristics of the schools such as teacher effectiveness, the school’s environment and so on, and also a few observable but changing factors such as the characteristics of the student intake. 17. Before reporting our results, it is worth considering that the outcome could be negative, zero or positive. Negative if there is a major impact on staff morale, or key highly effective staff leave, or dealing with the process diverts resources and time from teaching. Positive if the failure (re-)focuses attention on the right things, and provides increased information and motivation. 18. Our preliminary results show that there is a positive causal effect of failing an Ofsted inspection on the school’s subsequent GCSE performance. This effect is statistically and substantively significant, but it appears to be transient. It peaks at two years after the inspection but has disappeared by four years after. This is the average effect; we are now investigating any heterogeneity in this effect. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w95

19. This seems to us to be a reasonable and credible outcome. The effect is positive not negative on average, which obviously is an encouraging report of the impact on school improvement of Ofsted. On the other hand, failing an Ofsted, and the aftermath of that, are not highly resourced and high impact interventions. It is unlikely that that would have a permanently transformative effect on a school. 20. We have also conducted a preliminary analysis of the question of whether the contemporaneous year 11 cohort suffers in the year of the Ofsted inspection. We ﬁnd a rather small negative effect.

Further Data Details 21. The number of categories used by Ofsted varies year by year over this period, so we have amalgamated them into four groups, with the bottom category being “judged to be failing”. 22. The ﬁrst set of results here reported adopts a straightforward analysis of the inspections data. We have not adjusted for the fact that schools deemed to be failing are inspected more often than those deemed to be excellent. This is likely to have two offsetting effects on the ﬁrst part of our results described here. On the one hand, this means that the sample will contain more schools strongly at risk of failing, and these are likely to be schools in poor neighbourhoods. On the other hand, schools having been deemed to be failing are more likely to have improved—either through mean reversion or the impact of the Ofsted judgment—and so are less likely to fail next time around.

Tables and Figures Table 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY OFSTEJUDGMENT, 2009 Number of OFSTED judgment School means: inspections KS2 test score of Eligibility for FSM Neighbourhood cohort1 (%) Poverty (IDACI)

Excellent 0.276 9.5 0.193 151 2 0.052 12.2 0.225 283 3 -0.099 14.6 0.250 192 Fail -0.073 16.7 0.267 42 Total 0.051 12.5 0.227 668 1. KS2 score: normalised within-year to mean zero and standard deviation 1. Table 2 SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING, BY SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS, 2009 Quintiles of School KS2 test score of Eligibility for Neighbourhood Number of Characteristics cohort1 FSM (%) Poverty (IDACI) inspections % of schools judged to be failing:

Lowest 9.7 2.24 2.24 134 2 7.46 5.92 6.72 134 3 7.52 7.58 6.77 133 4 4.48 7.46 8.21 134 Highest 2.26 8.27 7.52 133 Total 6.29 6.29 6.29 668 1. KS2 score: normalised within-year to mean zero and standard deviation 1. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w96 Education Committee: Evidence

Figure 1 MEAN KS2 TEST SCORE OF SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING (F) AND EXCELLENT (E)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

KS2 total F 0.1 KS2 total E 0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -0.1

-0.2

-0.3

Figure 2 POVERTY RATE OF SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING (F) AND EXCELLENT (E)

0.25

0.2

0.15

FSM%F

0.1 FSM% E

0.05

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w97

Figure 3 NEIGHBOURHOOD POVERTY RATE OF SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING (F) AND EXCELLENT (E)

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2 IDACI score F 0.15 IDACI score E

0.1

0.05

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 4 PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING BY SCHOOL KS2 TEST SCORE

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15 Lowest KS2 Quintile

Highest KS2 Quintile 0.1

0.05

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w98 Education Committee: Evidence

Figure 5 PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING BY SCHOOL POVERTY RATE

0.25

0.2

0.15 Lowest Poverty Quintile

0.1 Highest Poverty Quintile

0.05

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 6 PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS JUDGED TO BE FAILING BY NEIGHBOURHOOD POVERTY RATE

0.25

0.2

Lowest 0.15 Neighbourhood Poverty Quintile

0.1 Highest Neighbourhood Poverty Quintile 0.05

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w99

Memorandum submitted by NSPCC 1. What should be the purposes of inspection (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit)? 1.1 The primary purposes of inspection are to provide assurance on the standard of services/activities, and to contribute to service improvement by identifying and disseminating good practice. The assurance role includes the extent to which services/activities meet the requirements of legislation and national guidance and the needs of service users and also the extent to which they accord with accepted best practice. Inspection will have a number of stakeholders, for example: operational and senior managers; elected representatives and the public, in particular children and young people. Inspection findings are a key mechanism for holding public services to account for their activities. 1.2 In order to discharge the assurance role, sufficient resources are needed to review and interrogate key material such as records, and to interview staff, service users and other stakeholders. This triangulation provides a robust platform on which inspectors can make judgements about the quality of services. 1.3 The principal advantage of a national inspectorate is to ensure consistent standards and approaches to an issue. However, for this to work well the application of standards has to be consistent. This relies on the quality of the inspectors and rigorous oversight of the inspection process. One of the disadvantages of a national inspectorate is that it is unlikely to have the resources to look in detail at local practice. 1.4 It is important to recognise that for any inspectorate looking at services for children there should be a safeguarding thread running through the assessment regardless of the setting being inspected. Although school inspections are designed to ensure the delivery of high quality teaching, learning and leadership, importantly they also contain a focus on schools’ implementation of safeguarding policies and procedures and the attainment of pupil well-being. Schools have a statutory duty to promote the well-being of pupils under Section 38 of the Education and Inspection Act 2006 and to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under Section 175 of the Education Act 2002. Holding schools to account for their fulfilment of these duties is therefore a key purpose of school inspection.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 2.1 In relation to Ofsted inspection of schools, the NSPCC’s primary interest is the use of inspection to ensure improvements in pupil safeguarding and child protection and the associated impact on pupil attainment levels. We will therefore limit our response to question two to an emphasis on how inspections deliver improvements in relation to the safeguarding and well-being of pupils. 2.2 The new Ofsted inspection framework, introduced in September 2009, contained a strengthened emphasis on the evaluation of pupil well-being.40 The NSPCC welcomes the focus on well-being and the fact that schools must prioritise this as a requirement of inspection. We consider that aiming to improve pupil well- being is of intrinsic value to pupils. However, it is also extremely important in relation to school improvement due to the direct link between children’s well-being and their attainment levels. NSPCC practitioners who work with young people in schools have found that many children and young people who are experiencing difﬁculties in their lives often struggle to fully engage with learning until they have been supported in dealing with their social and emotional problems. The NSPCC’s research, Problems at home, problems at school demonstrated that maltreated children are at much higher risk of poor academic performance, behavioural problems, bullying and increased levels of truancy.41 For this reason, high quality pastoral care and teaching about personal well- being through the Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE) curriculum can have a positive impact upon a range of outcomes including on attainment levels.42 2.3 The NSPCC has concerns about the contents of a letter from the Secretary of State for Education to Christine Gilbert on the 28 September 2010 in which he outlined the intention to slim down the inspection framework, including a reduced focus on ‘peripheral issues’ such as pupil well-being.43 We consider that the emphasis on well-being in the inspection framework is essential to improving educational outcomes across the board as well as improving the life chances of the most vulnerable children and young people and thus should not be regarded as "peripheral".

"Limiting" judgements 2.4 The new Ofsted inspection framework introduced a ‘limiting judgement’ on ‘safeguarding.’ This means that if schools fail to take measures to ensure pupils are kept safe then this will directly affect the judgement of their overall effectiveness.44 An inspection of safeguarding includes an examination of whether child 40 Ofsted (2009) The evaluation schedule for schools London: Ofsted 41 Mills, C (2004) Problems at home, Problems at school: The effects of maltreatment in the home on children’s functioning at school London: NSPCC 42 See Blake, S and Plant, S (2005) Addressing inequalities and inclusion through PSHE and Citizenship. London: National Children’s Bureau; Ofﬁce of the Children’s Commissioner (2005) Journeys: children and young people talk about bullying. London: Ofﬁce of the Children’s Commissioner and Harries, J (2006) Promoting Personal Safety in PSHE. London: Paul Chapman Publishing 43 Letter from Education Secretary, Michael Gove, to Christine Gilbert on the 28 September 2010. 44 Ofsted (2009) The framework for school inspection London: Ofsted cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w100 Education Committee: Evidence

protection and safeguarding policies, strategies and procedures are in place, whether the school has a designated member of staff with responsibility for child protection, whether staff receive training in child protection, whether the school responds appropriately to child protection concerns and whether pre-employment checking of staff is carried out consistently. 2.5 The NSPCC strongly supported the introduction of the limiting judgement on safeguarding. We would be extremely concerned about any plans to remove this element of the Ofsted inspection as we consider that this is a key mechanism to hold schools to account in this area, ensuring that school leaders maintain a clear focus on child protection. In 2009, Ofsted’s Annual Report stated, “The inspection of safeguarding remains a high priority for Ofsted, in judging both the extent to which pupils feel safe and whether procedures for safeguarding them meet requirements.”45 As Working Together states, education staff have a crucial role in identifying and responding to possible abuse or neglect.46 Retaining this requirement through inspection helps to ensure that all schools take at least take the minimum steps required in relation to safeguarding children. 2.6 We are aware that policy discussions on the use of limiting judgements have so far focused on the rare occasions where inspectors have been over-zealous in their application of the new criteria.47 Our Education Advisors are also aware that there are many misleading ‘myths’ about how the new limiting judgement on safeguarding operates, such as the supposed case where a school failed an inspection because inspectors were offered coffee before their identities were checked.48 However, we consider that this highlights that some inspectors might require additional training as they adapt to the new inspection model, rather than justifying a wholesale deletion of this valuable tool from the inspection framework. Furthermore, it is important to note that in the vast majority of cases where safeguarding arrangements are found to be inadequate, schools have also been found to have signiﬁcant weaknesses in other areas.49 This suggests that weaknesses in safeguarding can also be indicative of other weaknesses in schools. We therefore consider that Ofsted should continue to apply the limiting judgement in relation to safeguarding.50

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 3.1 This is not an area of expertise for the NSPCC.

4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 4.1 This is not an area of expertise for the NSPCC.

5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 5.1 In recent years a sense has developed that a disproportionate amount of time and resource is given to inspection, that the process has been too driven by the attainment of targets and that this has been at some cost to investment in improved frontline services, and very much to the detriment of the conﬁdence and morale of frontline staff. The call has been for an increased emphasis on peer review and self-assessment to lessen what has become known as “… the burden …” of inspection.51 These matters are addressed in more detail below. 5.2 In this respect, there are a number of points we wish to draw to the attention of the Committee. First, we consider there is a need to reﬂect on the conduct and culture of inspections of social care, which are “now … motivated by a fear of failure and not the conditions for success.”52 Certainly, for those being inspected the process seems to have become an exercise in damage limitation rather than a desire to continuously improve. 5.3 Secondly, performance management measurements tend towards over-bureaucratisation for both inspectors and those being inspected, yet Local Authorities are punished for poor statistical outcomes, and this, unsurprisingly, inculcates an unhealthy obsession with looking statistically sound. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) has commented: “The perceived punitive effects and the impact of judgements on services in terms of the local media and political response are in danger of creating a climate whereby the inspected manage for inspection rather than managing for quality and outcomes for children and young people.”53 45 Ofsted Annual Report 2008/09 46 See Paragraph 2.157 of Working Together to Safeguard Children London: DCSF (2010) 47 Fazackerley, A; Wolf, R and Massey, A (2010) Blocking the best: Obstacles to new, independent state schools London: Policy Exchange 48 Ofsted have no record that this incident actually happened. See: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us/FAQs/ Safeguarding/ 49 Ofsted (2009) ‘Inspection arrangements update for maintained schools’ in Ofsted News, Issue 15, December 50 Maintained schools are inspected under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. 51 Local Government Association (LGA). (2010). Freedom to Lead: Trust to Deliver—Consultation proposals http:// www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/7789425. Retrieved 7 October 2010 52 Shoesmith, S (2010) Evidence to the Education Select Committee, 15 September 2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeduc/uc465-i/uc46501.htm. Retrieved 7 October 2010. 53 ADCS (2009). Position paper on inspection http://www.adcs.org.uk/download/position-statements/november-09/ADCS-position- on-inspection.pdf. Retrieved 7 October 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w101

Triangulation methods of inspection 5.4 Statistics, however, do not necessarily tell a reliable story. A good statistical out-turn is not necessarily supported by a similar ‘story’ in conversations with practitioners and service users; similarly a poor statistical out-turn may be at odds with their experiences, which may be good. In this respect we welcome the adoption of methods of triangulation in inspections of safeguarding and looked after children, where combining the information derived from ﬁles, meetings with service users and staff will increase the credibility and validity of the results.54 Such methods should, we consider, form a signiﬁcant element of all inspections, such that, for example, safeguarding and early intervention might be triangulated by examination of implementation of the multi-agency assessment tool, the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), across a range of agencies and institutions.

Number of CAFs undertaken (benchmarked against national average)

Multi-agency practitioner experienc es Service user experienc es

5.5 The additional merit of wider adoption of triangulation methods in inspection processes is the light they throw on any discrepancies in accounts of services, providing inspectors with a lens through which to identify those areas requiring further scrutiny. Such methods should form a key element of both the process of inspection and the subsequent grading. 5.6 Furthermore, consideration should be given to the development of a more sensitive set of indicators. For example, one indicator currently in use concerns the percentage of referrals to children's social care which proceed to initial assessment. This is open to local interpretation and variation in thresholds. However, this does not mean that the information, if better defined and refined, would not be helpful in understanding how concerns are dealt with by local agencies. There are two ways in which we recommend that the data could be made more useful. These are: (i) Describing a wider range of early responses, for example: completing a CAF; talking to another agency/worker; contacting a family member; talking to parents; talking to/seeing the child, or (ii) A tighter definition of ‘initial assessment’. For children already within the child protection system, the percentage of agreed recommendations in child protection plans that have been actioned within six months might also be an instructive indicator. 5.7 Thirdly, while self assessment is important for internal use and improvement, and as part of a learning process which actively involves participants and provides them with the opportunity to reflect on organisational and individual practice issues, we do not consider it provides a sufficient level of transparency and independent assurance for service users or the wider public in the absence of appropriate scrutiny and challenge from inspectors. 5.8 The reductionist approach of much self-assessment, too often weighted towards quantitative analysis, based on closed questions and with no significant supporting evidence, provides no assurance as to the quality of processes, structures or services for children and young people.

Peer review 5.9 In addition, the merits of peer review should be examined. A model adopted from academic and clinical communities (particularly in respect of the alleged objective veracity of scientiﬁc claims), peer review is intended to examine practice in a challenging but supportive way. Rooted in the assertion that “a greater emphasis on self evaluation and peer challenge with an attendant reduction in the burden of performance monitoring and inspection by central government and inspectorates”55 will deliver “sector-led improvement” (ibid), peer review is expected to identify strengths and weaknesses and provide recommendations for improvement. The assumption is that peer review provides some assurance as to quality. Yet experience in other contexts suggests that peer review can be “… biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily ﬁxed, 54 Ofsted (2009). Inspections of safeguarding and looked after children services: Framework for inspection and guidance for local authorities and partners www.ofsted.gov.uk/.../Inspections%20of%20safeguarding%20and%20looked%20after%. Retrieved 7 October 2010. 55 ADCS (2009). Position paper on inspection http://www.adcs.org.uk/download/position-statements/november-09/ADCS-position- on-inspection.pdf. Retrieved 7 October 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w102 Education Committee: Evidence

often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”56 In view of this, we consider that before peer review is embraced too widely or enthusiastically it should, at the very least, be subjected to rigorous independent evaluation.

5.10 Finally, we understand how major, infrequent inspections provoke stress at all levels. We also understand that they are costly exercises and as a set-piece tri-annual exercise, for which two weeks notice is provided, are unlikely to provide a ‘warts and all’ insight into the quality of local governance and services. Unannounced inspections, on the other hand, require no preparation, take signiﬁcantly less time and resource and provide a picture of day to day practice at the most vulnerable point for children’s services, namely: the front door. It is true that such inspections will provide a ‘snapshot’. It may be a bad day. However, unfair though it may seem, and much though those being inspected might protest, the truth is that services need to stand up to scrutiny every day not just on the good ones.

5.11 We hope that the programme of annual unannounced inspections of safeguarding, looked-after-children, contact, referral and assessment will be maintained and that consideration is given to expanding this model to include a wider range of children’s and other services. We consider the triangulation method discussed above should be utilised in the model, and that key performance measurements should be revised to encourage collaboration, partnership work and, most importantly, service-user and wider public satisfaction with services. As has been observed, “Just looking at the information doesn't tell you anything about the experience of the children and their families. You have to start with their experience of services.”57

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

6.1 Clearly the key outcome for any public service must be the quality of the service, as experienced by the people who use it and as perceived by the wider public who are asked to pay for it. We consider, therefore, that the key focus of inspection should be the experiences of children, young people and families and the extent to which services are meeting their welfare and protection needs.

6.2 Inspection should also include scrutiny of arrangements between adult and children’s services where transition, for example, remains a problematic area for many young people, particularly those who are disabled, and/or in need of continuing health (including mental health) care services. In addition, the risks posed to children living in families experiencing domestic violence, substance misuse or mental health problems are well rehearsed “… and it is the combination of these factors which is particularly toxic”58. Inspectors might also be tasked, then, with scrutinising the quality of information that passes between adult and children’s services in respect of the social care needs of adults that may place children at risk.

6.3 Expertise is clearly of fundamental importance to the quality of inspection. In recent years Ofsted has been inhibited by not having senior experience. Indeed, it did not appoint anyone in a senior position with a social care background until very recently.59 This want of appropriate expertise must be addressed within any revised inspection model.

6.4 Consideration should also be given to the role of inspectors in the learning and improvement process. The former Commission for Social Care Improvement (CSCI) had a strong focus on supporting improvement in practice, maintaining an ongoing relationship with services proportionate to their need to improve. Thus the learning process was nurtured, good practice could be shared and performance properly monitored. This is not a role Ofsted has sustained, and we consider that reinstating it would be beneficial, particularly in a period of significant financial constraint which is likely to have an impact on the numbers of children and young people requiring additional support, at a time when the threshold for services may be under considerable pressure.

6.5 Finally, our experience of involving children and young people in the inspection process has been a wholly positive one, on both sides of the inspection process. The NSPCC not only benchmarks services by talking to children and young people who use them, but has also found that appointing children and young people to inspection teams as lay inspectors provides additional rigour to the inspection process itself bringing the benefits of a fresh perspective (including challenging inspection approaches and methodology by asking ‘obvious’ questions such as ‘why do we do it this way’); enables a young person’s view to be gained on specific aspects of practice (for example, how well are children and young people informed about and involved 56 Horton, Richard (2000). “Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up”. MJA 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html 57 Dame Denise Platt, Evidence to the Children, Schools & Families, 20 January 2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/276i-ii/10012002.htm Retrieved 7 October 2010. 58 Brandon et al (2010). Building on the Learning from Serious Case Reviews: a two year analysis of child protection database notifications 2007–2009. DFE Research Report RR040, available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DFE- RR040-WEB.pdf Retrieved 7 October 2010. 59 Dame Denise Platt, Evidence to the Children, Schools & Families, 20 January 2010, available at: http:// www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/276i-ii/10012002.htm Retrieved 7 October 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w103

in work with them and their families; is information provided in a child friendly/accessible way); provides an opportunity for young service users to choose to speak with another young person; and demonstrates to staff, partner agencies and service users that we take the views and involvement of young people seriously.

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

7.1 The NSPCC considers that new academies and ‘free schools’ should continue to be subject to regular Ofsted inspections to ensure that they are fulﬁlling their legal duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to promote pupil well-being.60

7.2 We are therefore very concerned that ‘outstanding’ schools’ will not be inspected unless a parent raises signifcant concerns about a school, or the school’s results become a cause for concern.61 Further, we consider that a single outstanding judgement by Ofsted is not a reliable predictor of future performance and should not justify a lack of participation in Ofsted inspections. For example, the Shireland Collegiate Academy in Birmingham was rated outstanding by Ofsted but was subsequently failed by inspectors following its conversion to academy status.62

7.3 Where Ofsted have identiﬁed weaknesses in a school’s performance following inspection, Local Authorities currently play a key role in helping schools to improve. The Local Authority can help to make a range of changes including appointing new governors, creating interim executive boards, linking poorly performing with well performing schools, or close, merge or otherwise re-organise the school or request an Ofsted inspection.63 It is not clear who will discharge these functions once there is a greater degree of autonomy for schools, and this should be a key consideration as new inspection models are developed. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by A+ Education Ltd

1. This evidence is provided by A+ Education Ltd.

We will answer the Education Select Committee’s questions with particular reference to Early Years education and care. A+ Education Ltd is the leading UK authority on the Environment Rating Scales (ECERS, ITERS and others), supporting over 40 Local Authorities and many practitioners across England in using the scales for quality improvement. We have conducted over 1,500 quality audits of Early Years settings in England over the last four years, using these internationally-recognised and research-validated tools.

2. The purpose of inspection (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit).

The purpose of inspection should be to ensure the quality of provision offered to all children. Self-evaluation should be at the heart of the improvement process.

3. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement.

We believe that the Ofsted regulatory framework has had a positive impact overall. The recent focus on self- evaluation (e.g. the SEF) is very positive. However, we believe that the mechanisms should be reviewed to ensure that all work carried out in preparing for Ofsted (including self-evaluation) serves a valid and useful purpose. Settings and schools currently spend a large amount of time preparing for inspections, and completing the self-evaluation form. Any moves which can help to reduce the burden—for example, focusing on ‘improving’ rather than on ‘proving’—would be welcomed.

4. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work.

The quality of provision over the past years has undoubtedly improved, and we believe that Ofsted inspections have contributed to this. In particular, the bar has been raised at the bottom end. Reports from settings on the experience of inspections also appear to have been more positive in recent years. Inspectors seem to be taking greater account of other sources of information—for example, gathering the views of children and parents, and taking greater account of Local Authority data/support ratings for settings. In our view these are moves to be welcomed. However, there remain a number of problems, including: 60 Section 175 of the Education Act 2002 and Section 38 of the Education and Inspection Act 2006, respectively. 61 Michael Gove has announced that academy schools previously judged outstanding will no longer be subject to routine school inspection, see: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/academies/academiesfaq/a0063432/ofsted- inspections-faqs/ 62 The Gove Plan: Why so quiet Labour? The Independent, 30 May 2010 63 Powers granted under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w104 Education Committee: Evidence

— The knowledge of Ofsted inspectors, particularly in relation to Early Years. In our experience, many Ofsted inspectors lack specialist knowledge in the areas of child development and what constitutes developmentally-appropriate practice. Knowledge of the Early Years Foundation Stage amongst inspectors also seems variable. A properly trained and qualiﬁed workforce is essential if Early Years inspections are to be valuable in raising quality. This relates not only to the recommendations of the reports themselves, but also to the extent to which settings and schools respect the judgements made. If practitioners working with young children do not feel that inspectors have a sound knowledge of early years practice, they will be less likely to value the conclusions and recommendations made. On a related issue, we believe that all those responsible for inspecting schools should have a teaching background (ideally qualiﬁed teacher status). — Lack of consistency in judgements. The focus and conclusions of the reports appear to vary enormously depending on the inspector. — Despite an overall reduction in the number of very poor settings, there are many settings we visit which have been graded as satisfactory (or higher) by Ofsted around which we have had serious concerns.

5. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. See point 4 above.

6. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process Having both the welfare requirements and learning and development requirements together in one framework gives the right message i.e. that education and care cannot be separated and that both are equally important to give children the best start in life. However, we believe that Ofsted inspections should separate the two more signiﬁcantly than they do currently. In our experience, Ofsted inspectors give settings inadequate or satisfactory judgements more easily in relation to the welfare requirements because these are more straightforward areas to assess than the learning and development requirements (particularly where inspectors are not knowledgeable about Early Years). Although the welfare requirements are obviously essential, this can sometimes result in a setting doing very good work in terms of developing children’s learning getting the message that they are inadequate overall.

7. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate. We believe that the regulatory function should continue at a national level for providers of Early Years education and care. Having one EYFS and inspection framework for both settings and schools is positive. Requirements for some providers (for example childminders) could be reviewed to ensure they are not too onerous in terms of paperwork. Inspections can also be burdensome for out-of-school providers catering for small numbers of children under ﬁve. However in some cases it would appear to be the way in which different Ofsted inspectors interpret the EYFS that can cause difﬁculties (e.g. in relation to the amount of planning and paperwork required).

8. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy We have not responded to this item because the question is unclear.

9. Research evidence. The Environment Rating Scales include the ECERS (Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale), the UK curricular extension to the ECERS (the ECERS-E) and the ITERS (Infant and Toddler Environmental Rating Scale). They form a set of standardised quality assessment tools, used in many countries around the world for research and developing practice. They provide a measurable ‘profile’ of quality in Early Years settings across a number of different dimensions of quality and have been shown in many research studies, both in the UK and elsewhere, to be reliable, valid and strongly related to children’s developmental outcomes64. Hopkin et al (2010) carried out a comparison of Ofsted gradings and ECERS assessments as part of the MOPSU65 study, comparing quality data from 255 childcare settings collected as part of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) and Ofsted quality ratings from their most recent inspection report prior to the introduction of the EYFS. The MSC study measured quality using the ECERS-E and selected sub-scales from the ECERS- R. Hopkin et al found significant but weak correlations between the ECERS-R, the ECERS-E and the Ofsted gradings, ranging from 0.15 to 0.2766. They give several suggestions as to the reason for these weak relationships, including methodological reasons (e.g. the length of time between the Ofsted report and the MCS quality observation) and differences in scope between the two measures. Nonetheless, they consider the lack of apparent relationship to be surprising. 64 Sylva et al (2004), Burchinal et al (2002), Pesiner-Feinberg and Burchinal (1997) 65 Hopkin, R., Wilkinson, D., Stokes, L. (2010). Quality, Outcomes and Costs In Early Years Education.Report to: Office for National Statistics. The research forms part of the ‘Measuring Outcomes for Public Service Users’ (MOPSU) project. 66 0 would indicate no association between the two measures and one is a perfect correlation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w105

The authors also explored the relationships between Ofsted, ECERS and a variety of child outcome measures used in the MCS study67. While relationships were found between the ECERS scales and a number of the outcome measures, Ofsted inspection judgements did not predict any of the outcome measures. They conclude that “it is unclear from this analysis as to what aspects of quality Ofsted judgements reflect”. We have applied for funding to extend and improve on the Hopkin study in three specific ways: — Firstly, we plan to use the whole of the ECERS-R (i.e. all seven subscales) to provide a more complete analysis, as well as extending the remit to include a measure of quality for children under the age of three years (the ITERS). As in the Hopkin study, we will also use the curricular extension to the ECERS-R (the ECERS-E). — Secondly, we plan to limit the time between Ofsted visits and ECERS/ITERS assessments to six months, which is generally considered to be the “shelf-life” of an ECERS assessment. The Hopkin study used inspection reports from the full 2005 to 2008 cycle. The MSC quality study gathered data between March and October 2005. It is therefore possible that the time between the Ofsted the ECERS assessment in a setting could be more than two years. Quality is not static over long periods of time, and can vary with changes in staffing and other influences. Reducing the time between the observation and inspection dates will therefore ensure that the quality being measured is comparable. — Thirdly, we propose to include inspection reports post 2008, thus bringing the comparison up to date to include the EYFS inspection regime and providing current information for the proposed review of the inspection framework (as well as the EYFS review). We will aim to carry out separate comparisons for inspections pre and post 2008, but this will depend on the numbers in each group within the sample. We have access to a very large sample of ECERS/ITERS quality audits (up to 2,000), providing low-cost access to a large amount of existing data. These have been carried out by trained observers, with rigorous reliability standards. We are therefore confident that the data is reliable and robust. Our research question will be: — What are the key differences in content and scope between Ofsted and ECERS/ITERS quality ratings and what can the comparison tell us about what Ofsted reports measure? We hope that this data will be available, should a wider review of the Ofsted framework be commissioned. The research would have the specific aim of informing policy development in the field, and providing recommendations as to how the UK regulatory and quality monitoring frameworks could be improved. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The National Foundation for Educational Research Executive Summary 1. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) is Britain’s leading independent educational research institution and is submitting this paper to the Education Select Committee to inform its inquiry into the role and performance of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). 2. The evidence presented by the NFER is based on work commissioned by Ofsted to examine the impact of Section Five inspections in maintained schools in England. Two evaluations were conducted: the first between 2006 and 2009 by the NFER and the second in 2009/ 2010 by a partnership of BMG and the NFER. The findings from the evaluations indicated that the great majority of schools were satisfied with the inspection process and that the process was generally perceived as contributing to school improvement. The findings from the joint evaluation showed that changes to the inspection framework, introduced from September 2009 (such as increased numbers of observations and more emphasis on learner progress) had been received positively, and were perceived to be contributing to improved teaching and outcomes. The key findings from the work are summarised below: — Schools perceive Ofsted inspections to have a positive, if mainly indirect, impact on school effectiveness and improvement. — The main contribution of the inspection process is seen to be in confirming, prioritising and clarifying areas of improvement, rather than in identifying new areas to address. — Inspections contribute to improvement in many different areas, but in particular: assessment, monitoring and tracking; teaching quality; and attainment. — The 2009 changes to the inspection framework, including increased emphasis on observations of teaching and learning, have facilitated greater engagement between schools and the inspection teams, and a better understanding of areas of concern. 67 Three assessments based on the British Ability Scales, a difficulties and a prosocial behaviour score from the Goodman Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and Foundation Stage Profile Assessments cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w106 Education Committee: Evidence

— The majority of schools are very satisfied with Ofsted’s performance in carrying out its work. Suggested changes include: simplification of the SEF (now underway), increased emphasis on lesson observations, making inspections less data driven, and greater consistency across inspection teams. — All the various elements of the inspection process contribute to the improvement cycle, but there has been greater emphasis in recent years on schools’ self evaluation. Schools welcomed oral feedback from, and dialogue with, inspectors, and report a high degree of consistency between oral feedback and the written inspection reports. — Ofsted was seen to fulfil an important role in providing an independent accountability mechanism for schools.

Introduction 3. The Education Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. This submission by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) aims to provide evidence and recommendations that we hope will support the committee in its inquiry. 4. The NFER is Britain’s leading independent educational research institution. The Research, Evaluation and Information Department is one of two research departments at the Foundation, and specialises in all areas of education and training.

Research Conductedbythe NFER 5. The following sections take the lead from the structure set out in the call for evidence by this Select Committee. The evidence submitted by the NFER covers only certain elements pertaining to the role and performance of Ofsted. 6. The evidence presented here derives from (i) a three-strand evaluation of the impact of Section Five inspections conducted by the NFER between 2006 and 2009 and (ii) an evaluation of the new Section Five inspection framework, introduced in September 2009, carried out in 2009–10 by a research partnership between BMG Research and the NFER. 7. The NFER evaluation: The ﬁrst two strands of the evaluation, including a pilot phase, were conducted between February 2006 and April 2007. They comprised: — A survey of all schools inspected between October 2005 and March 2006 (subject to minor exclusions): 1,597 schools replied, giving a response rate of 66%. — Case-study visits to 36 schools where interviews were conducted with a total of 169 headteachers, senior managers, governors and parents, usually individually, along with 243 pupils, usually in small discussion groups. — Statistical modelling of survey responses and various school background factors, using satisfaction with, and perceived impact of, inspection as outcomes. — A desk-top review of key case-study school documents and test and examination results. A third strand of the evaluation, building on the ﬁrst two strands, was conducted between May 2008 and March 2009. The aim of the third strand was to gain a wider perspective of Ofsted’s work from, for example, teaching assistants, and to examine the longer-term impact of Ofsted’s recommendations. This strand consisted of case-study visits to 18 schools previously visited (including 96 interviews with members of the senior leadership team, teachers and teaching assistants) and a short email survey completed by 126 headteachers. 8. The BMG Research/NFER partnership evaluation: The 2009/2010 evaluation comprised: — A survey of all schools inspected under the new framework from September to November 2009: 784 schools responded to the survey. — Case-study visits to 30 schools. Interviews were conducted with headteachers, senior managers, teaching staff (including other professionals who deliver teaching and learning activities), support staff, governors, pupils and parents.

What should the purposes of the inspection be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit)? 9. Research conducted by NFER and the BMG/NFER partnership relates to schools rather than all organisations, settings and services. It suggests that inspection has three main purposes: to ensure there is a degree of external accountability; to identify areas for improvement, and to challenge schools with analyses of their strengths and weaknesses. 10. The inspection process is an integral element within the school improvement cycle. It is important in afﬁrming schools’ successes and self-evaluation, and gives impetus and direction to school improvement. The cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w107

research showed that the purpose of inspection is largely seen as confirmatory: the inspectors’ recommendations matched areas which schools had already identified for improvement, confirming their own judgements and focusing their school development plans.

What is the impact of the inspection process on school improvement? 11. Description of the inspection process: The Section 5 inspection process was introduced in September 2005. The main changes were: less advance notice of the inspections (usually two days), more frequent inspections, smaller inspection teams, increased emphasis on the school’s own self-evaluation evidence and shorter reports with fewer, clearer recommendations for improvement. Key elements of the new inspection process were: completion of the self evaluation form (SEF), dialogue between inspectors and teachers and oral feedback on the SEF and lesson observations, the written inspection report, letter to pupils, diagnosis and inspection grades. The revised inspection framework, introduced in September 2009, allowed inspectors to take more account of progress and achievement as well as attainment, to give more weight to evidence from the SEF and contextual information about the school, to consult parents and pupils, and to make reports shorter and more incisive. 12. A key finding of NFER’s evaluation was the positive impact of the inspection process on school improvement. In the first two strands of the evaluation, nearly two thirds of survey respondents and just over half the case-study interviewees considered the inspection process had contributed to school improvement. In particular, they valued the contribution of the process in confirming, prioritising and clarifying areas for improvement (rather than in highlighting new areas). The dialogue with inspectors was also felt to be valuable and many schools felt the inspection reports had provided an impetus to drive forward progress. 13. The area where the inspection recommendations were perceived to have the greatest impact was in assessment, monitoring and tracking. Recommendations to improve assessment led to greater consistency of assessment across the schools, better understanding of assessment techniques and more sharing of good practice. In addition to this, inspection was perceived to have achieved to some extent a direct positive impact on school improvement in terms of quality of teaching and improved attainment. Other school improvements included increased distributed leadership and management, restructured support staff roles, enhanced staff confidence and better relationships with pupils. Inspections were seen to contribute to all these areas of improvement, but it was also acknowledged that many other factors influence school improvement. 14. Specific recommendations had greater impact than more general ones: recommendations that provided focus, were regarded as actionable, were not open to misinterpretation, or provided a clear point of reference for the school development plan, were most helpful and continued to be helpful two or three years after being given. Specific recommendations validated senior leaders’ judgements of areas of improvement and helped to drive the school development plan forward. 15. The recent 2009–10 evaluation relating to the revised inspection framework indicated a positive response to the changes introduced in September 2009. Most felt that they were more able to engage with the inspection process and in meaningful dialogue with the inspection team and felt that inspectors were more open to discussing issues of particular concern to them. 16. In addition to this, schools welcomed the increased emphasis on observations and there was a sense that many would prefer even greater emphasis on observations of teaching and learning and less on data and systems. They also welcomed the greater emphasis given to the inspection team understanding contextual evidence about the school. 17. In line with NFER’s evaluation, the 2009–10 evaluation also showed the impact of the inspections to be confirmatory: areas for improvement identified by the inspections were those of which schools were already aware from their own self-evaluation and school improvement planning. The inspection findings reinforced schools’ assessment of areas where improvement was needed, helped to prioritise these areas, and facilitated continued improvement. 18. Where the inspection process resulted in an overall effectiveness grade of ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, schools reported a positive effect both internally and externally. It was also felt that achieving these grades allowed schools flexibility to take bigger, more innovative steps to improvement.

How well does Ofsted perform in carrying out its work? 19. The NFER evaluation showed that Ofsted performed very well in carrying out its work, with the vast majority of schools saying they were very or quite satisfied with Ofsted’s inspection process, and which they found less stressful than the previous, longer format of inspection. Over half the schools surveyed (52 per cent) were ‘very satisfied’ with the process and a further third (36 per cent) were ‘quite satisfied’. A minority, ten per cent of schools, were ‘not at all satisfied’ with the inspection process. Changes to the inspection framework, evaluated in 2009/10, were also viewed positively. 20. Self evaluation was regarded as having improved and the SEF framework had contributed to this improvement. The inspection teams made good use of the SEF and this provided a focus for the inspections. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w108 Education Committee: Evidence

Receiving appropriate guidance on SEF completion contributed to overall satisfaction with the inspection process. 21. Classroom practitioners viewed observation and feedback as very significant in terms of satisfaction with the whole inspection process. The NFER evaluation showed that the oral feedback stage from the inspection team is of crucial importance to schools. Over half (60 per cent) of the survey respondents found the oral feedback very useful, and a further 32 per cent fairly useful. Constructive oral feedback contributed to schools’ overall satisfaction with the inspection process. In line with this, findings from strand three of the evaluation showed that, when lessons observations were perceived to be fair, well-managed and as extensive as possible within existing time constraints, and where adequate and consistent feedback was given, schools were very satisfied with the way the inspections were carried out. The 2009–10 evaluation corroborated this view. 22. The majority of schools were satisfied with the inspection findings and felt that the written report was consistent with the oral feedback they had received. Those who found complete consistency between the oral and written feedback were more likely to be very satisfied with the inspection overall. The written report was found to be helpful in identifying strengths and weaknesses and areas for improvement. Schools in the 2009/10 evaluation also reported favourably with regard to the framing of recommendations and areas for improvement. 23. Although schools were generally satisfied with the inspections, just over half suggested changes to the process. These included simplifying the SEF, allowing more time for lesson observation, making the inspections less data-driven, and ensuring more consistency across inspection teams. Concern was expressed over data interpretation by some schools inspected from October 2005 to March 2006. Subsequent evaluation work, however, suggested that Ofsted had addressed theses issues, for example in the training of their inspectors, and there is now more evenness and consistency in terms of the way data is used, particularly in relation to fully understanding the school context. Also, from September 2009, pupil ‘achievement’ was given more emphasis. 24. The NFER evaluation revealed some dissatisfaction in schools with the terminology used to describe the “overall effectiveness” grades, especially in relation to the “satisfactory” grading, and some interviewees expressed a view that the terminology was too negative and too rigid. Several respondents suggested that inspectors should look for further ways to provide praise and encouragement for staff, perhaps through oral feedback and lesson observation.

What evidence is there on the consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process? 25. The NFER evaluation showed a high degree of consistency between schools’ self evaluations and inspection findings. When school survey respondents were asked to compare their own SEF grades with those awarded by the inspection teams, two thirds reported no differences between Ofsted’s and the school’s grades. Consistency between schools’ and Ofsted’s grades improved, the longer the Section Five inspections had been in operation. 26. It was viewed as essential that inspectors were not only consistent (and seen to be consistent) within and across teams in their approach to observation and feedback, but also in the way that they handled discussions with all school staff. 27. Three-quarters of the case-study interviewees believed the written report to be fair and accurate and to be helpful in identifying areas for improvement. Recommendations for improvement were considered to be helpful and sufficiently specific. Oral and written feedback from inspectors was considered to be consistent. 28. The 2009–10 evaluation corroborated these findings and showed that inspection findings were generally consistent with those of schools’ own evaluations.

What weight is given to different factors within the inspection process? 29. There has been greater emphasis in recent years on the self-evaluation element of inspections. The new system ensures that an external independent element of inspection remains, but there is also a detailed rigorous consideration of how the school evaluates itself. 30. The research has shown that self evaluation and inspection, in its role as assessor of self evaluation, are integral elements of the school improvement cycle, and there is a complex relationship between the two. Developments in school self-evaluation, as expressed in the SEF, have been successfully incorporated into the new inspection process. 31. Oral feedback and dialogue (on the SEF and lessons observations) is a valuable element of the inspection process. School managers appreciated the opportunity to ask questions, to conduct a dialogue about the inspection process and to receive early indications of what the inspectors were going to say in their report. The oral feedback was useful as conﬁrmation of the schools’ self-evaluation, as a stimulus for ongoing dialogue within the school, and as a driver for improvement. This suggests that Ofsted should maintain and perhaps even enhance the central position that oral feedback has in the inspection process. 32. Respondents in the 2009–10 evaluation welcomed the increased emphasis on observations in the inspection process and there was a sense that many would prefer an even greater emphasis on observations of teaching and learning, and less emphasis on data and systems. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w109

Is inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare best conducted by a single inspectorate? This question was not part of the remit of the NFER/BMG research.

What is the role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy? 33. NFER research indicates that Ofsted’s independent external inspections are important in ensuring that schools are accountable and that academic standards are maintained. It also indicates that schools are largely satisfied with, and understand the need for, independent external inspections. 34. The Ofsted inspections were largely viewed by schools as confirmatory. Schools recognised that, however reliable their own self evaluation was, it was useful for parents and the local communities, as well as for their own staff, to have their judgements confirmed and, where appropriate, challenged, by an external and objective body.

Conclusions 35. A range of research and evaluation activities have been carried out in the last five years to examine the impact of the Section Five inspections on maintained schools in England. The work has shown that schools are largely positive about the inspection process which has a predominantly confirmatory purpose. There was evidence that, although the completion of the SEF was seen to be burdensome, rigorous self-evaluation was regarded as an important part of the school improvement cycle. Although schools will no longer need to complete a SEF, it seems that their view is that self-evaluation should still be an important part of the school improvement and inspection processes. Schools value the contribution of all aspects of the inspection process, but in particular, the increased emphasis on observations and oral feedback from inspectors, which has improved the level of engagement between inspectors and schools and enabled better identification of areas which could be improved. October 2010

Sources McCrone, T, Rudd, P, Blenkinsop, S and Wade, P (2006). Impact of Section 5 Inspections: Maintained Schools in England [online]. Available: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all- by/Documents-by-type/Consultations/Impact-of-Section-5-inspections-maintained-schools-in-England [8 October 2010]. McCrone, T, Rudd, P, Blenkinsop, S, Wade, P, Rutt, S and Yeshanew, T (2007). Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections. Slough: NFER. McCrone, T, Coghlan, M, Wade, P and Rudd, P (2009). Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections— Strand 3 [online]. Available: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/ Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/NFER-evaluation-of-the-impact-of-section-5-inspections-strand-3 [8 October 2010]. Kellard, K, Costello, M, and Godfrey, D (2010). Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections. Birmingham: BMG Research. Draft Report: UNPUBLISHED.

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 22 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 toSafeguardingResearch andAuditProcess 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: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w110 Education Committee: Evidence

— 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w111

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 3–12 years, 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.

Memorandum submitted by Play England Summary 1. Play England’s concerns in relationship to Ofsted inspection divides roughly into two discreet areas: where play settings ﬁnd themselves subject to Ofsted inspection and their experience of this; and play provision within schools. 2. Staffed play provision: Play England is concerned that where Ofsted inspectors are inspecting staffed play provision, there is a lack of inspectors with specialist knowledge or training about play and playwork, and this is leading to inconsistent and inappropriate judgements being made by some inspectors due to misunderstandings about the nature of the provision being provided. We therefore recommend that Ofsted inspectors of staffed play provision should attend mandatory training on play and playwork. 3. Play in schools: Play England welcomes the recent emphasis in inspection on all of the Every Child Matters outcomes and the recognition that these in turn have an essential role in raising standards, increasing attendance and ensuring children’s well-being. Play is an example of where improvements to non-academic provision can have great beneﬁts across the school. We recommend that inspection criteria should continue to take account of non-academic factors. 4. Insofar as the performance of local authorities and their partners across the whole area is to be monitored for improvements, Play England also advocates that the recent moves to ensure that provision for play and informal recreation for children and young people is included within such inspection, should be maintained. 5. There is a lack of understanding amongst school inspectors of play of the role and importance of play activities within school life and in contributing to the wellbeing of children and their wider outcomes. This can cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w112 Education Committee: Evidence

lead to inspectors recommending the removal of good play offers within schools, due to for example unfounded health and safety fears. We recommend that training for inspectors should include an understanding of children’s play and how it can contribute to school improvement, as well as improved training on health and safety and how it applies to schools.

Background 6. Play England is the national charity to promote children’s right to play. We aim for all children and young people in England to have regular access and opportunity for free, inclusive, local play provision and play space. We provide advice and support to promote good practice, and work to ensure that the importance of play is recognised by policy makers, planners and the public. Play England is part of the National Children’s Bureau and also supports their submission. 7. Play is an essential part of childhood. Children enjoy playing and it is how they spend much of their free time. Although research increasingly suggests that play supports children’s learning development and educational attainment68 the primary aim of play provision is to ensure that children have opportunities and space to engage in freely chosen, self-directed play for its own sake. 8. Play services staffed by trained playworkers support children in the creation of spaces where they can engage in play that is freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated. Playworkers adopt a distinct style of intervention which balances risk and the developmental wellbeing of children, allowing children to determine the content and purpose of their play, following their own ideas and interests.69 Research has established the added value that staffed play provision provides70. 9. Children’s enjoyment of their right to play is recognised within the statutory framework for coordinated local services: the Children Act 2004 established a duty on local authorities in England to co-operate in their provision for the enjoyment of play and recreation as part of delivering improvements in outcomes in the well- being of all children. This led to the inclusion in the inspection framework of a key judgment that ‘all children and young people can access a range of recreational activities, including play and voluntary learning provision’. 10. Increasing evidence of the constraints on children’s freedom to play, especially outside where the environment is most conducive to healthy play opportunities, led to more a more speciﬁc intervention by the last government, which launched a national Play Strategy in April 2008. This included, as part of the Children’s Plan commitment to develop new school level indicators for pupil wellbeing, looking with Ofsted at how schools’ provision for play can be identiﬁed and how this will feature in future school inspections. 11. Also as part of the Play Strategy, in April 2009 a new indicator (NI 199) was introduced to the National Indicator Set, measuring children and young people’s level of satisfaction with the parks and play areas in their local area, to be reported against by Ofsted for every top-tier local authority as part of the annual Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) process.

Ofsted Inspection of Play Provision 12. Staffed play provision is subject to Ofsted inspection when they either provide services to children under six years old, and therefore are covered by the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework, or they sign up to the voluntary General Childcare Register. 13. Play England is supportive of the welfare standards required by both of these, which are important to ensuring high quality provision and inspection clearly has a role to play in this. However some staffed play settings are now taking themselves out of registration with Ofsted71, while others which provide services to a wider range of children are now choosing not to provide services to children under six years old in order to not be covered by the EYFS, meaning that younger children may miss out on this kind of provision. This is for a range of reasons but include problems that arise with the Ofsted inspection process. 14. There is also a voluntary quality assurance scheme, Quality in Play, administered by Play England, which helps to raise standards in the sector in a way that is more directly relevant to the play sector. 15. In terms of play provision inspection, we believe its main purpose should be to regulate, make sure that welfare requirements are met and ensure that the provision provided is of high quality. The key concern around Ofsted inspection for the play sector is that many inspectors do not understand the nature and purpose of play provision and playwork, and that this is leading to inspection decisions that conﬂict with the very purpose of the provision and are often inconsistent, and that this may in fact compromise the quality of the provision instead of helping it to improve. It is arguable that Ofsted inspections should therefore focus on the welfare requirements only and leave issues around playwork quality to specialist quality assurance schemes as 68 Matrix Evidence/Play England, An economic evaluation of play provision, 2010. Test scores refer to the Georgis Criterion Reference Test (GCRT) 69 Playwork Principles, Playwork Principles Scrutiny Group, Cardiff 2005 http://www.skillsactive.com/playwork/principles 70 Joost Beunderman, People Make Play, Play England/Demos, 2010, http://www.playengland.org.uk/resources/people-make- play?originx_7212ya_2568038300121m19v_2010333755u 71 The Early Years Register, General Childcare Register and Early Years Foundation Stage—Holiday Playschemes Impact Assessment, SkillsActive 2009 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w113

mentioned above; however a lack of understanding of playwork in combination with the welfare requirements being interpreted too rigidly can conflict with the play provision being provided. 16. Ofsted have produced guidance for inspecting play provision: ‘Regulating play-based provision’72 and have emphasised that inspectors should be familiar with the approach a setting uses, such as the Playwork Principles, but the experience of play providers in practice is patchy and inconsistent, with some particularly negative examples being reported. 17. The problems that have been reported appear to arise from a lack of understanding of play and playwork, and Ofsted inspectors need to understand that these settings provide play provision, not a learning setting. Children have an entitlement to free time and leisure, as laid out in Every Child Matters; arguably ‘play is children’s freedom’. Play settings provide for this free time (in comparison to early years settings which are designed for early learning), but play workers then find that some inspectors focus their inspections on the learning and development aspects of the EYFS, which is inappropriate for the settings. 18. Amongst its other benefits, free play provides children with opportunities to explore their world, test boundaries, take part in challenging activities, and learn about risk so that they can manage it in their own lives. Part of the training of playworkers is how to make professional judgements about such risky activities through, for example, risk/benefit assessments, and the play sector has a strong understanding of how to balance this, including for example through guidance such as Managing Risk in Play Provision73. Ofsted inspectors often do not understand this process and so undermine it or think that such activities should be stopped— taking away from children important opportunities to learn about risk and danger and learn how to manage it. An example of this is an adventure playground in Wolverhampton which was told to stop activities involving fires, even though the play workers were trained to manage these. Another example is of inspectors saying that different age groups should not be playing together, when this has benefits such as older children learning to take responsibility for the younger children. 19. Some settings who are inspected under the EYFS also report that the inspectors focus primarily on the children covered by the EYFS, even though these may be the minority of children in a setting, and this may lead to play settings concentrating their work disproportionately on that age range at the expense of older children. 20. As Ofsted’s own guidance recognises the Playwork Principles and that inspectors should be taking this into account, the inconsistency in provision would suggest that there is a lack of enough Ofsted inspectors adequately trained to understand playwork in order to be able to inspect it correctly. Play England therefore recommends that Ofsted inspectors of staffed play provision should attend mandatory training on play and playwork.

Play Provision in Schools 21. Play England views the purpose of school inspection as to evaluate school performance and contribute to wider school improvement across a range of factors. We welcome that Ofsted has in recent years widened its view of school effectiveness, with more emphasis on all of the Every Child Matters outcomes and the recognition that these in turn have an essential role in raising standards, increasing attendance and ensuring children’s well-being. 22. Good quality play provision within schools can have great benefits for both the school and the pupils. Schools which have enhanced their provision, valued playtimes and made their environments more playful have seen great benefits. As well as contributing towards their children’s wellbeing, with children happier at school and eager to attend, schools taking part in play in school programmes such as the Outdoor Play and Learning (OPAL) project in South Gloucestershire and the Scrapstore Playpod74 scheme have reported improved concentration in lessons, higher attendance levels, reduced accidents and reduced behaviour incidents in playtimes. 23. The benefits that play can provide are a good example of why, if schools are to continue improving, school inspection needs to continue looking at all of children’s outcomes, including well-being, and so we recommend that inspection criteria should continue to take account of non-academic factors. 24. Unfortunately, schools find many barriers to providing good play provision, including playtimes being reduced because of curriculum pressures, a lack of interesting play environments (with too many schools having only a barren concrete playground) and fears over health and safety. Ofsted inspections can sometimes contribute to these barriers rather than helping to reduce them. There have been reports, for example, of schools being told that they should not allow children to run in the playground, not only severely curtailing their play opportunities but also reducing the health benefits of play. Wellesley Primary School in South Gloucestershire went through a careful health and safety approved process to improve their play provision and to allow ‘scrap on scrap’ play fighting (where play fighting is allowed within safe parameters to respond to children’s desire 72 Regulating Play-based provision, Ofsted 2010, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/ Other/General/Factsheet-childcare-Regulating-play-based-provision 73 David Ball, Tim Gill and Bernard Spiegal, Managing Risk in Play Provision, Play England/DCMS/DCSF, 2008 http:// www.dcsf.gov.uk/play/downloads/Managing%20Risk.pdf 74 http://www.childrensscrapstore.co.uk/Projects.htm cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w114 Education Committee: Evidence

for rough-and-tumble play). Their Ofsted inspector judged that this should be curtailed, even though there had been an 80% drop in accidents and incidents in the play ground since the school improved its’ play opportunities. Other schools have reported that inspectors simply fail to recognise the contribution their enhanced play provision has made to the whole school. 25. Once again, the evidence from schools suggests that Ofsted inspectors are lacking in understanding of the role and importance of play activities within school life and in contributing to the wellbeing of children and their wider outcomes. Whilst school inspectors would not necessarily need the level of understanding of playwork needed for inspecting out-of-school staffed play provision, we recommend that training for inspectors should include an understanding of children’s play and how it can contribute to school improvement, as well as improved training on health and safety and how it applies to schools. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Ofsted THE PURPOSE OF THE INSPECTION OF SERVICES AND SETTINGS IN OFSTED’S REMIT Accountability 1. Ofsted carries out independent, expert inspections and regulatory visits in order to drive improvement across the full range of its remit, and reports to Parliament annually.75 Ofsted also produces in-depth studies of curriculum subjects and aspects of provision in social care, education and skills, to advise the government and inform the public on quality and standards, and to provide evidence to Parliament and its Select Committees.76 2. Local authorities and funding bodies use inspection reports when making their decisions about support for children and learners. Local communities and those using services, including parents, inﬂuence inspections and have access to published inspection reports, enabling them to hold services to account.

Information 3. Ofsted’s inspection reports provide learners, parents, employers and the wider community with independent and trusted information. This helps them make informed choices about their schools, nurseries and colleges. Ofsted’s website, where around 2,900 new inspection reports are published each month, receives up to 570,000 unique visitors and eight million hits a month.77

Improvement 4. Inspection should be an agent for change, not just of scrutiny and challenge. Ofsted publishes what inspectors look for during inspections in inspection “frameworks”, both to ensure consistency and set out clearly the features of outstanding, good, satisfactory and inadequate provision. Ofsted regularly consults on, and revises, its inspection frameworks to take into account rising public expectations and to drive continuous improvement.78 5. Ofsted’s inspection reports contain speciﬁc recommendations so that those providing services know what to do to improve. Ofsted also monitors weaker providers more closely to ensure they know what to focus on and that appropriate steps are being taken. Ofsted draws on its ﬁndings to highlight what is working well, and shares good practice so others can learn from it. 6. Ofsted has a regulatory role in relation to childcare and some children’s social care services. When inspecting these providers, Ofsted checks that the government’s minimum standards are being met and takes proportionate enforcement action to ensure children are safe and well looked after.79

The performance of Ofsted 7. The creation of the new Ofsted in April 2007 brought together the work of four predecessor organisations into a single inspectorate for children and learners.80 There are always challenges involved in implementing 75 The latest of which is The Annual report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2008/ 09, Ofsted, 2009. 76 In 2009–10 Ofsted carried out around 38,500 inspections, including nearly 3,800 inspections of children’s homes; over 18,000 childcare providers, over 6,300 schools, 167 colleges, 122 prisons and secure estate settings, and 98 inspections of local authority child protection contact, assessment and referral centres. The 2009/10 Annual Report will be published in November 2010. 77 In an independent survey carried out by Ipsos MORI in 2009, only 9% of parents said they were not in favour of school inspection, with most valuing the information it provides and saying it stops schools from coasting and/or helps them improve. 78 Ofsted’s inspection frameworks and associated guidance for inspectors are published on Ofsted’s website, www.ofsted.gov.uk 79 Ofsted also looks into complaints about regulated childcare and social care providers. In 2008/09, for example, Ofsted looked into 7,200 complaints about childcare provision and required action to bring about improvement in 31% of these cases. (Ofsted Annual Report 2008/09) 80 The new Ofsted brought together: the work of the Adult Learning Inspectorate, the children’s work of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the inspection of Cafcass from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration and the Ofﬁce for Standards in Education. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w115

and embedding a large organisational merger, but Ofsted has continued to deliver and improve the full range of its inspection and regulatory activity whilst achieving significant savings. Ofsted has consistently met its inspection and regulatory targets. 8. The majority of education, children’s services and skills providers inspected by Ofsted report they are satisfied with Ofsted’s work. For example, since September 2009, around nine out of 10 headteachers responding to post-inspection surveys said they were satisfied with the way their inspection was carried out and that the inspection had identified clear recommendations for improvement. A similar number of children’s home managers responding to a survey in 2010 said they thought Ofsted’s inspections helped them improve what they do, and every college inspected in 2009–10 agreed that the Ofsted inspection report provided a sound basis for action and development. 9. Inspection develops over time, and since April 2007 Ofsted has introduced improvements across the full range of its remit, including: — increasing the time spent directly observing services for children and learners. Under the school inspection framework introduced in September 2009, for example, inspectors are spending around twice as much time in classrooms as under the previous framework. New unannounced inspections now directly observe child protection arrangements in local authorities. — focussing on the experiences of children, young people and adult learners, and in particular those who are amongst the most vulnerable: those who are looked after by, or leaving the care of, local authorities.81 — making inspections more proportionate to risk. Under the current school inspection framework, for example, all schools are inspected at least once in a five year period, but weaker schools are inspected with greater frequency. Ofsted is currently working on new proposals to cease routine inspections of outstanding schools and colleges unless there are concerns about their performance. — making it easier for front-line staff to tell us when things are going wrong. In 2009, for example, Ofsted introduced a new whistle-blowers’ hotline to enable council employees and others working with children and young people to raise concerns about safeguarding practices and procedures. In addition, new surveys of social workers and those working in the third sector were introduced in 2010. — bringing together some inspections, such as of education and welfare in boarding schools, reducing demands on services and making more efficient use of resources. 10. Ofsted has continued to reduce its overall expenditure whilst meeting its inspection and regulatory targets. It now costs the taxpayer around a third less to carry out its work when compared to the cost of the predecessor organisations carrying out those functions in 2003–04, a saving of around £80 million. 11. Savings have been made through a combination of: more proportionate inspection; re-tendering outsourced school and college inspection contracts (in September 2009) and outsourcing early years inspections (from September 2010); and efficiencies brought about through restructured and streamlined corporate support services. Ofsted is a leader in the use of outsourced provision in the public sector. At the same time, Ofsted has continued to ensure its staff has the learning and development necessary to deliver high quality inspection and regulation and was awarded Investors in People status in 2008.

The Impact of the Inspection Process on School Improvement 12. Independent evaluations have found that inspection has a significant impact on school improvement, especially in the weakest schools. Inspection can act as a catalyst for improvement and helps ensure schools are focusing on the right areas for development. Over the four years of school inspections ending in 2008–09 there was a steady increase each year in the proportions of good and outstanding schools, with this figure reaching 69% of schools inspected in 2008–09.82 13. The areas on which Ofsted focuses in inspection frameworks can help target improvement. For example, safeguarding arrangements have markedly improved since Ofsted introduced a more rigorous approach to this area. In 2006, an Ofsted study found that 32 of the 58 schools inspected were not acting in accordance with the government’s safeguarding requirements. Ofsted subsequently introduced a greater emphasis on this area, and during 2009–10 less than 2% of schools were judged inadequate for safeguarding. 14. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NfER) evaluated Ofsted’s impact between 2006 and 2009.83 NfER emphasised the importance of classroom observation, high quality feedback and clear, specific and straight-forward recommendations in published inspection reports. Teachers, in particular, reported that inspection helps identify where change is needed. Nearly 90% of teachers responding to the NfER survey 81 See, for example, Ofsted’s Annual Report 2008/09. Ofsted is able to draw on the inspection of individual providers; its new inspections looking at looked after children’s services within local authorities and the work of the Children’s Rights Director, who is based within Ofsted. 82 The proportion of schools found good or outstanding since September 2009 was lower than this. However, this is in the context of a more-risk based approach to inspection where more satisfactory, inadequate and declining schools were selected for inspection. 83 The NfER evaluations of the impact of section 5 inspections are available on Ofsted’s website, www.ofsted.gov.uk cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w116 Education Committee: Evidence

stated that they thought inspection helped schools to set new priorities for the future and 85% agreed that inspection led to improvements in teaching and learning.84 15. Ofsted has an important role in driving improvement in the weakest schools. When a school is placed in “special measures”, for example, Ofsted holds a school improvement seminar with the headteacher, the governing body and a representative of the local authority to discuss the improvements needed. Ofsted inspectors then carry out monitoring visits of the schools, at a frequency of up to three visits a year, to support and check on progress. 16. Since September 2005, 83% of schools improved sufﬁciently to have special measures removed by the time of their ﬁfth monitoring visit. School leaders, teachers, and local authorities will have brought about the necessary improvements but headteachers of schools coming out of special measures say that Ofsted monitoring visits had a major impact.85 The Ofsted visits helped the school to focus on the right areas, kept the school on track, and imbued a rapid pace.

The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process 17. All Ofsted’s HMI and social care regulatory inspectors undergo rigorous selection, induction and training processes, and all have experience and skills relevant to the sectors they inspect. 18. Ofsted employs HMI to undertake and quality assure inspections of schools and colleges, and contracts with three private inspection service providers (CfBT Education Trust, Serco Education and Tribal Group) to supply Additional Inspectors. There are tight contractual arrangements in place with the inspection service providers, with key performance indicators setting stringent quality standards.86 Ofsted has worked with private inspection service providers since its creation in 1992 and has a comprehensive programme of quality assurance in place. 19. HMI quality assure the work of the Additional Inspectors on their team and check the suitability of new Additional Inspectors before signing them off for further deployment. Most of the current cohort of Additional Inspectors have substantial experience of inspections, often working with HMI since 2005. Some Additional Inspectors are serving headteachers. HMI continue to lead many of the most complex inspections, including 75% of secondary schools and 85% of schools causing concern. 20. Ofsted employs Social Care Regulatory Inspectors to carry out inspections across the range of children’s social care settings. Social Care Regulatory Inspectors must have a recognised social work qualification or at least a level four professional qualification relevant to working with children. They must also have significant experience of leadership and management in a social care setting or service for children and young people or at least three years post-qualifying experience as a fostering or adoption social worker. 21. Ofsted also employs expert HMI (Social Care) who in addition to leading inspections of social care settings and welfare in boarding schools, inspect and evaluate safeguarding, child protection and looked after children services in local authorities. They are also responsible for evaluating serious case reviews and are all qualified and registered social workers with appropriate senior leadership and management experience. 22. As with school and college inspections, Ofsted has a dedicated quality assurance process to ensure children’s social care inspection standards are met and reports are consistent. Local authority children’s services are surveyed following either a full inspection of their safeguarding and looked after children’s services or an unannounced inspection of child protection referral and assessment arrangements. In 2009–10 all but one local authority reported satisfaction with the way the inspection was carried out, and not one expressed concerns about the skills and experience of the inspection team.87

The Weight Given to Different Factors Within the Inspection Process 23. Ofsted inspections are designed for the particular service or sector inspected. Some of these, such as independent schools and children’s homes, are deﬁned by the need to ensure that providers are meeting legal requirements and minimum standards; others, such as schools and colleges, are more focused on evaluating quality. 24. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process depends upon the type of inspection but Ofsted’s inspection frameworks normally have overall judgments on: “Overall effectiveness” (often informed by a judgement on “capacity to improve”); “Quality of provision”; “Outcomes for children/learners”; and “Leadership and management”. 84 Independent survey conducted by NFER, Teacher Voice Survey 2009, available on Ofsted’s website, www.ofsted.gov.uk 85 Seventy eight percent of the headteachers surveyed reported that their schools would not have made the same progress at the same rate without the monitoring visits; 16% responded that they would have made the same progress but not at the same rate. [Impact of special measures monitoring: headteacher perspective, Internal brieﬁng, Ofsted (2007)] 86 In the period April-June 2010, none of the 1152 inspections conducted required formal intervention by Ofsted to secure the judgement and none of the additional inspectors presented for sign-off failed to meet the criteria. During the same period there were only 4 upheld complaints about the manner in which inspections were conducted (1 in 288). 87 Of the 35 post-inspection surveys carried out, 32 local authorities agreed or strongly agreed that the skills and experience of the inspection team matched the areas inspected (one did not respond and two neither agreed nor disagreed). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w117

25. In relation to the school inspection system introduced in September 2009 children’s achievement, and in particular their learning and progress, is the driving factor in determining a school’s overall effectiveness, with a lesser link to raw attainment. In the first two terms of the new school inspection framework, in over a quarter of the schools judged to be outstanding and half of the schools judged good, pupils’ attainment was not above average for the country. 26. Under this current inspection framework, if a school is found inadequate for safeguarding or promoting equal opportunities of pupils’ achievement, it is highly likely to be judged inadequate overall. Serious weaknesses in either of these areas usually reflect more general serious weaknesses in the school. In the first two terms of the new inspection arrangements, Ofsted undertook 3,990 school inspections and no school was found inadequate solely as a result of minor safeguarding concerns.88 27. In learning and skills inspections, Ofsted’s inspection frameworks have a similar focus on improvement, particularly the outcomes for, and the needs of, different groups of learners including underachieving groups and those in vulnerable circumstances. Ofsted’s inspection arrangements encourage services to focus on the interests of learners and employers who use them. Learning and skills providers tell us they value the inspection of sector subject areas. These are sampled and graded on all inspections and offer a specialist view for the benefit of learners and employers. There is also an emphasis on the judgement on “capacity to improve”, recognising the Further Education and Skills sector’s drive for increased self-regulation. 28. Ofsted introduced new arrangements for the inspection of services for safeguarding and looked after children in the summer of 2009.89 The arrangements have two main elements. The first is the annual programme of unannounced two-day inspections of front-line child protection contact, referral and assessment arrangements in local authorities. The second element is the full two-week rolling programme of inspections of safeguarding services and of services for looked after children held over a three year timeframe. 29. Both types of inspection consider front-line practice and place emphasis on the quality and impact of the service. During the unannounced inspections, inspectors spend their time observing work coming in, how it is responded to, and how it is prioritised and managed in real time. Inspectors talk to front-line staff and managers about their experience and perspectives and they examine a sample of cases in detail with the workers involved. In the full inspections, HMI look at the whole range of ways in which local authorities and other services deliver their responsibilities for keeping children safe, both as individual agencies and in partnership. 30. The new inspections have been well received, and Ofsted is working with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services to improve the arrangements and make sure they are fully proportionate.90

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 31. Ofsted has demonstrated that it is possible for a single inspectorate to carry out high quality inspections of individual learning and welfare services by using expert inspectors. Having these carried out by a single inspectorate brings a number of attendant advantages, including: — being able to investigate themes relating to both welfare and learning, such as poverty, special educational needs or outcomes for looked after children and produce insightful reports sharing best practice and making recommendations for improvement. — being able to look across services for children and learners in local areas to see how well they are joining up in a way that was not done before; for instance, in its reports on safeguarding and looked after children’s services in local authorities. — creating efficiencies for providers and local authorities. Ofsted can carry out “single inspection events”, for example where schools also run registered childcare, thereby reducing demands whilst making judgements on the full range of services on offer in one location. — reflecting local and national government structures and helping ensure coherent accountability mechanisms. 32. Having a single inspectorate has also resulted in efficiency savings as mentioned above. This has included reductions in the per capita cost of in-house staff such as research, IT and administrative teams.91 The creation of the new Ofsted in April 2007 resulted in immediate savings of around £15 million, principally through economies of scale and sharing back-office functions.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 33. Ofsted inspection has an important role to play for schools operating with greater autonomy. Independent, expert inspection will enable such schools to be held accountable, will encourage their continuing improvement and give parents the information they need to compare all schools on a consistent basis. 88 Ofsted published an FAQ section on its website in response to myths arising around the time of the introduction of the new school inspection framework that made it clear that schools would not be found inadequate for minor safeguarding issues. 89 Ofsted consulted extensively on these new arrangements and published its initial proposals in September 2009. 90 As noted at paragraph 22, feedback from those inspected about these inspections has been overwhelmingly positive. 91 Had Ofsted existed in its current form in 2003–04, its stafﬁng would have been 3,082. At the end of March 2010, the new Ofsted’s headcount was 2,142. And with the outsourcing of early years in September 2010 it is as of 1 September, 1,539. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w118 Education Committee: Evidence

34. Ofsted has been introducing increasingly proportionate inspection over the last few years to ensure there is a strong focus on underperformance. A move to no longer routinely inspecting outstanding schools will build on this. Ofsted will continue to undertake essentially desk-based assessments of the performance of such schools so that concerns can trigger an inspection. Ofsted will also continue to carry out survey inspections in these schools to ensure others can learn from the very best.

35. There is no conﬂict between Ofsted’s inspection role and schools having greater autonomy in terms of management and curriculum. This is already reﬂected in the inspection arrangements for academies. Ofsted judges schools on the basis of the quality of their provision and the outcomes for their pupils, not by compliance with statutory requirements or particular models of provision. Ofsted recognises that different approaches to leadership and management can work equally well in different contexts. What matters is the impact of leaders and managers on the quality of teaching and learning, and the outcomes for the school’s pupils.92 October 2010

Memorandum submitted by British Association of Social Workers

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) is the professional body led by and accountable to social workers in the UK. The Association has almost 13,000 members working in frontline, management, research and academic positions in all social work settings across the UK. Our members share a collective commitment to those values and principles that will secure the best possible outcomes for children, young people and their families.

Executive Summary 1. Ofsted inspections are viewed very negatively by the social care sector; they take up an inordinate amount of practitioners time in terms of satisfying the demands of the performance management framework at the expense of direct work with children, young people and their families. 2. Ofsted inspections do not promote a culture of openness and transparency given the stakes that are involved for the organisations under scrutiny. Inevitably, this leads to great pressure being applied to the workforce to present a “good” front in order to get through the inspection process. 3. The main focus of the inspection is to gather vast amounts of quantitative data rather than qualitative data which really does not provide an accurate picture of the service being inspected. Frontline social workers rarely get the opportunity to directly communicate with inspectors about the nature of their work. 4. Inspection reinforces the “blame culture” as individuals rather than organisations are often scapegoated for any perceived weaknesses in the service which may then invoke a disproportionate use of disciplinary processes. 5. There is variation in the knowledge, skills and experience of Ofsted inspectors; at their worst, some appear to have very little understanding of the work of the sector they are inspecting. 6. Currently, the inspection regime of children’s services is very time consuming, costly and ineffective in terms of innovating positive change. BASW is therefore calling for radical reforms to inspection as part of its Social Work Bill due to be launched on the 14 October 2010. BASW proposes replacing Ofsted and CQC with an independent social work inspectorate.

“Inspection will be a rigorous process with a focus on the qualitative experience of service users and the evidence of front line social workers as well as a thorough examination of social work practice and outcomes.”

Main Points 1. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit)

To ensure services are of a good and acceptable standard and provide advice and information on how to improve services which fall below this standard. The inspection should contribute to the provision of excellent services for service users and should involve all those who are responsible for the service, both in delivery and receipt.

Inspection, our members report (i.e. those working in local authority children’s social care departments and Cafcass) should not be seen as a punitive measure whereby once notice of inspection is obtained, all efforts are put into presenting a “good” front purely for the inspection itself. Social workers want inspection to be genuine with knowledgeable inspectors seeing the position as it is, not fabricated for the inspectors visit. They want to be involved and to be proud of the service they deliver, not live in fear of criticism. 92 Ofsted is working on new school inspection arrangements for consultation in 2010 and introduction in 2011. This will focus on the quality of teaching; the effectiveness of leadership; pupils’ behaviour and safety, and pupils’ achievement. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w119

2. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work Sadly, a commonly held view amongst the social work profession is that Ofsted have built a culture of negativity around inspection. Consequently, agencies which experience regular inspection perceive this as an intrusion, often putting on hold other areas of service provision to meet the demands of the Ofsted inspectors. Social workers (our members report) dread the arrival of Ofsted as it not only generates stress amongst the workforce but also lots of additional work as practitioners are often asked to spend further time on the administration of cases particularly the presentation of case ﬁles which diverts them from the far more important task of direct work with service users. They report that their supervision also gets high jacked by any forthcoming inspection as attention is then turned to meeting the demands of Ofsted’s performance management framework which is often perceived as a higher authority that needs immediate attention usurping other (service user) demands. BASW members with direct experience of involvement in inspections, report that they have often felt that their performance is criticised with little opportunity to discuss freely the issue/area being inspected and often receive no feedback from the process. Some have described the Ofsted inspection as similar to an examination or job interview, with no involvement in the process only that of witness. They suggest that there has been little opportunity to express their views re: possible improvements or reasons for any given position.

3. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process There are a wide variety of inspectors who perform this task for Ofsted with some inspectors approaching the inspection in a friendlier and more participatory way than others. It is evident, our members report, that the inspection is based mainly on the acquisition of quantitative information rather than qualitative with little recognition of many factors inﬂuencing practice. They report that they often feel like they are being doubly judged, given that they are already governed by line management within the inspected organisation, and any negative outcome becomes a personal issue rather than one owned by the Local Authority. They also add that they have at times, been interviewed by inspectors who they believe have had little understanding of their role or the circumstances in which they practice.

4. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process Again, the emphasis is placed on administration and what is visible in the case ﬁle. There appears to be very little understanding included in the inspection of case progress as this can only be assessed through reading case recordings. It is important to note that social workers cannot process record their activities and recording often highlights the main points only. Members have told us that they would be pleased to have case discussions with inspectors about how outcomes have been reached but their remit is restricted to the visible recording. Social workers agree that recording is crucial but again repeat that it only highlights a fraction of the direct work undertaken.

5. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate No, some inspectors appear to have a lack of knowledge of the service they are inspecting and often Ofsted will return to re-inspect, to measure progress and it may be a different inspector or team. Some of our members recall the previous inspection of children’s homes which was conducted usually by a locality inspector (R & I) who became familiar to management, staff and service users. Issues of breach of standards could be raised easily by service users who could contact the designated inspector direct, social workers and their management became familiar with the requirements and would consult with her/him re: any proposed changes to the service etc. There was often involvement in training and events to ensure the inspector was familiar with the service and adjustments necessary to meet regulations were done in a positive manner. This has not been possible with Ofsted. Social workers have seen a stark change in culture in regard to inspection, they tell us that in the past, the inspector calling had none of the negative connotations it has today.

6. Alternative proposal for regulation of children’s social work services BASW has spent the summer consulting with its members on a Social Work Bill which will strengthen the position of social work in England by creating a new structure for social work services including an independent Social Work Inspectorate which will provide “greater guarantees of public safety through a refocused approach to scrutiny and regulation of key services” (please refer to Appendix93). This Bill will ofﬁcially be launched on the 14 October 2010. Below is an extract focusing on inspection:

6.2 Inspection of Social Work organisations and services (a) Inspection of organisations undertaking Social Work functions will be undertaken by an independent Social Work inspectorate. 93 Not published on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w120 Education Committee: Evidence

(b) The independent social work inspectorate may be incorporated as a distinct arm of a wider ranging independent inspectorate. Regulations and statutory guidance will require the independent social work inspectorate to make a formal response to recommendations of the College of Social Work. Inspection will be a rigorous process with a focus on the qualitative experience of service users and the evidence of front line social workers as well as a thorough examination of social work practice and outcomes. The result of inspection will be the agreement of an organisation learning and development plan which will enable every organisation to move forward positively with an acknowledgement of both areas of achievement and matters for improvement. BASW would be delighted to have further discussions about this proposal with anyone who has an interest. Sue Kent Development Worker (England) Nushra Mansuri Professional Ofﬁcer (England) October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Boarding Schools’ Association and State Boarding Schools’ Association Executive Summary 1. Acknowledged at outset that the primary purpose of inspection is to safeguard the welfare of children. 2. Ofsted inspection of boarding welfare appears to be about compliance, not improvement. The two purposes of inspection are separable, but in this case they were separated without warning or consultation and costs were reduced appropriately only because of pressure from schools and the Boarding Schools’ Association. 3. The current Ofsted inspection process is believed by schools to have had little impact on school improvement. 4. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work in boarding welfare has been perceived by most schools as unsatisfactory. 5. Ofsted teams have been perceived as inconsistent or highly variable quality and very often without team members with any experience of boarding schools. 6. Squeezing the 52 standards down to 21 key standards, then reporting under 6 artiﬁcial headings, has radically altered the inspection and reporting process for the worse. 7. There is no reason why inspection of all children’s settings and services should be conducted by just one inspectorate. 8. Ofsted providing an accountability mechanism of autonomous schools should be possible. 9. For independent boarding schools in membership of the Independent Schools Council, allow the Independent Schools Inspectorate to conduct boarding inspections as they now do education inspections in those schools. 10. For state boarding schools, ensure boarding inspections are conducted by personnel with actual boarding experience and expertise. 11. Boarding Heads want an inspection regime which understands the sector, challenges the sector from a position of credibility and understanding, can advise as well as assess, is informed by some data—eg reliable questionnaire responses, which looks at the experience of boarders, not the experience of the inspectors

12. Introduction 1. The Boarding Schools’ Association (BSA) is a membership organisation which exists to support and promote good practice in boarding. It has over 450 member schools, the majority of which belong to the constituent associations (GSA, HMC, IAPS, ISA, SHMIS) of the Independent Schools Council. 35 of our member schools are state boarding schools. The State Boarding Schools’ Association (SBSA) is a constituent part of the Boarding Schools’ Association. Our independent school members educate approximately 68,000 boarders; there are approximately 4000 boarders in state boarding schools. 2. Since April 2007, Ofsted has been responsible for inspecting boarding welfare in all our schools both independent and maintained boarding schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w121

3. This submission is made on behalf of member schools, and with the approval of the Executive Committee of the Association, but without formal surveying of member schools because of the timing of the request for evidence.

What the purposes of inspection should be 4. Until April 2007, the purpose of the boarding welfare inspection conducted by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) was twofold: to assess boarding provision against the 52 National Minimum Standards for Boarding (2002), and to advise schools on improvement. A judgement was made about each of the 52 Standards, a report of about 40 pages confirmed the team’s findings. Thus a school’s provision was thoroughly examined and identified in the report as meeting the minimum standards, exceeding them, or falling short of those standards. Where improvements were needed, these were identified. Many schools built up relationships with their local inspectors which meant informal discussions might be held about, for instance, intended changes in boarding accommodation, and these conversations helped schools to get it right. When Ofsted took over the inspection of boarding welfare, they immediately removed the advisory role, declaring it not their remit. BSA complained that the same charges were being levied when only half the service was available— inspection against standards, no advice. 5. Schools have therefore become accustomed to an inspection regime which simply checks compliance. Our understanding is that they would prefer an inspection force also to be supportive and advisory. But if it is to be merely checking a school’s provision against the National Minimum Standards, then a second tier of advice and assistance to schools should be available. 6. The change from inspect/advise to simply inspecting, which occurred when Ofsted took over boarding inspections, was a de facto change with, so far as we are aware, no consultation or warning. Heads of boarding schools therefore believe that an inspections regime which used to advise has been simply lost because of a remote and unexplained decision.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 7. Schools have felt that the Ofsted inspection of boarding has had little positive effect on school improvement. They have felt that inspections have been focused on extreme compliance—e.g. a Head reports that one section of her report was downgraded from “Outstanding” to “Good”, despite the inspectors noting that all the boarders enjoyed school, enjoyed boarding, spoke of their absolute conﬁdence in all staff at all levels, because one teacher was not familiar enough with the staff handbook to know the school’s whistleblower policy. The one example stands for many similar accounts—one small infraction of a regulation is perceived by the school as having a disproportionate impact on the report and its summative judgement of a whole school in fact working excellently well. 8. The Ofsted version of inspection is perceived by schools as having made little contribution to school improvement.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 9. The BSA does not collect statistics about Ofsted inspections, but anecdotally there are many more negative views of Ofsted’s work in boarding inspection than positive views. In particular, schools have found that judgements given at the oral feedback session have subsequently been changed for publication—as if the people on the spot made one decision, but somewhere away from the school some mysterious process or pressure forced them to change their judgement to accord with some unknown agenda. Schools have challenged reports, and had those challenges accepted, only to find that the report on the website continues to include errors. The quality of writing has sometimes been poor. We know that there is no quality assurance for boarding inspections (unlike ordinary Ofsted inspections). This is all the more serious because unlike the inspections of education, there is no data to act as a “reality check” on the judgements. And boarding inspectors may be doing only a handful of inspections a year, building little experience. No data, no quality assurance and inexperienced inspectors ends up with poor inspection. 10. When a leader in Ofsted inspection (Jane Cooper) made herself available to member heads at the State Boarding Schools’ Association annual conference in January, she was inundated with individual accounts of poor practice on the ground. In particular, Ofsted attempts to join up their inspection of boarding with their inspection of a school’s education appeared to be failing. She said that she was delighted to hear from the people being inspected and promised to effect improvements. I understand that some inspections were then delayed in order to try to do them more effectively. But this is poor performance after three years doing the job. 11. Members of the State Boarding Schools’ Association Management Committee met with Christine Gilbert and drew attention to the particular difficulties of education and boarding inspectors establishing whose view of a school should take precedence, with possibly serious consequences for schools—e.g. “Outstanding” education, but “Inadequate” boarding, and vice versa—which would land a school in special measures? 12. Such difficulties might be exacerbated where a large school had a small boarding population (e.g. Burleigh Community School , with 1,300 pupils, 39 boarders). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w122 Education Committee: Evidence

13. Ofsted pupil surveys at present canvass all boarders, but only a percentage of day pupils—this is not equitable. Moreover, managing parental surveys in boarding if inspection is short notice is difﬁcult if many parents are overseas. They are disenfranchised by the assumption that all parents are day parents, and the survey being timed accordingly.

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 14. Headteachers believe neither consistency nor quality has been seen in the three years of Ofsted inspecting boarding. They are now accustomed to practice varying depending upon what region a school falls in, and to practice varying again according to the lead inspector. Ofsted officials spoke in the early days of intending to make their inspection of boarding a national business, with schools entitled to expect consistency and quality because it was an Ofsted process. It was a laudable ambition, and some of the inspection teams have worked well and effectively. Our impression is that these inspections are in the minority. 15. In boarding in particular, Ofsted inspectors are perceived as being ignorant about boarding and bringing expectations from other areas of inspection, such as care homes—“Let us see your restraint policy” appears to have been a frequent request—which are inappropriate in schools where parents are lively, active and highly involved partners with schools in the care of their children. The CSCI regime entitled schools to a Boarding Sector Professional Inspector (i.e. a person with experience and expertise in boarding, lent to the inspection team by another boarding school, in the spirit of peer review) if the school had more than 20 boarders. Ofsted intended at first not to have such people at all, erroneously believing them to be ill prepared and untrained, and, because lent by other schools, possibly involved in a cosy relationship with the inspected school. After strong protests from both BSA and individual schools, they agreed to include a Boarding Sector Additional Inspector in their teams inspecting schools with more than 50 boarders, if such an inspector were available. No entitlement. The BSA has approximately 145 boarding schools with fewer than 50 boarders. Six of the state boarding schools have fewer than 50 boarders. Immediately, such schools were effectively disenfranchised, losing the one person on the team who might have known anything about boarding schools, which are very far removed from care homes and children’s homes. Schools receive inequitable service for no good reason. The number of BSAIs has dwindled dramatically since Ofsted took over boarding welfare inspection, so that now state boarding schools are supplying a disproportionately large percentage of them, but may not be benefitting from their expertise in their own inspections. Ofsted even attempted, unilaterally and without explanation or consultation, to stop the use of BSAIs in state boarding schools. In practice, I am told that BSAIs have effectively been viewed as junior members of the team, and their input into final judgements has been restricted. Where inspectors are inexperienced and the inspection appears cursory the whole process of Ofsted boarding inspection is brought into disrepute.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process. 16. Ofsted transformed the inspection of boarding welfare from a careful consideration of 52 standards, with judgements on each, to an alleged consideration of the 52 standards, in practice and so declared in their paperwork for every inspection report, reduced to 21 “key standards”. In itself, this unilateral action, entirely without consultation or explanation, completely undermined the rationale of the NMS as written and enacted. All judgements were then corralled under the five headings of Every Child Matters —Being healthy, Staying safe, Enjoying and achieving, Making a positive contribution, Achieving economic wellbeing—for reporting purposes, plus Organisation. So, a school received 6 judgements, instead of the old 52. 17. The silliest of the headings for a boarding school was “Achieving economic wellbeing”, which may be assessable in some contexts but which in boarding schools boiled down to how good were the premises. It is difficult to see how a child achieving “economic well being” is proved by the state of the buildings or bedrooms. It is particularly difficult to assess a child’s economic well being when he is a junior boarder, perhaps aged 8. Even inspectors professed themselves baffled by how to find any of the standards to fit this category of ECM. In the event, their Annex to every inspection report for boarding says that for this category, National Minimum Standard 51 is the key standard. This is indeed an important standard—it covers what is expected of a school if it arranges for a boarder to be accommodated anywhere other than in boarding accommodation, e.g. a home stay arrangement. But very, very few schools ever do this at all. So one of only six judgements being passed on a school is made in the light of its performance in something it does not do. This heading of Every Child Matters is a nonsense in the context of inspecting boarding. 18. Of the other headings, “Being healthy” has twp key standards, “Staying safe” has 10 key standards, “Enjoying and achieving” has two, “Making a positive contribution has two, and then ‘Organisation’ has four key standards. Clearly they are disproportionate, but each heading is presented as if of equal weight. ‘Staying safe’ is a limiting judgement, and ‘Organisation’ cannot go higher than the judgement of how a school keeps children safe. Some schools have thus failed their Ofsted inspection of boarding because one 18 year old Australian who had never set foot in the country and therefore could not have a British criminal record, had not been CRB’d before being admitted to boarding accommodation. All our member schools acknowledge the primacy of safeguarding every child in their care, and shortcomings must be immediately addressed. But there has been a pervasive sense of Ofsted inspectors nit-picking while ignoring or under-valuing eminently good practice. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w123

19. State boarding schools judged outstanding in education and therefore not due to have a full Ofsted inspection would not wish a boarding inspection to trigger a full (i.e. boarding and education) inspection.

Is inspection to support children’s learning and welfare best conducted by a single inspectorate? 20. There is no reason why this should be necessary and surely more reason to provide the right inspectors for each setting according to its needs. Boarding Sector Professional Inspectors were not drawn in to inspecting care homes—care homes were not their ﬁeld of expertise. Why should care home professionals inspect boarding? Most schools would prefer an inspection to be all at once, covering all their work at once, rather than having, for instance, education inspected one week, and boarding the next, or several weeks later. But even with Ofsted, one inspectorate, for the state boarding schools dealing with both areas of the school, the inspection events were not consistently joined up. If they are to inspect at different times, why not be different inspectors? Preferably with expertise in the sector they are inspecting.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 21. An objective review of school performance, a check on its compliance with regulations, should be valuable, particularly as schools operate with more autonomy. Certainly schools value the external validation of what they do. They do try to achieve “Outstanding” in their inspections. But the very term is at odds with the notion of National Minimum Standards. Logically, the inspection process should test whether the school meets those—they are minimum standards and if a school does not meet them, they should fail the inspection. “Outstanding” suggests doing better than meeting them—but better where and how and how is that judgement made? 22. Such an objective view, an accountability mechanism, a compliance check, is likely to be more simply expressed than the current model of reports under the ECM headings, which are largely descriptive, rather than recording the satisfactory meeting of the requirements of regulations.

Recommendations for action 23. The majority of Independent boarding school Heads would prefer the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), which already inspects their education provision, to take over the inspection of boarding in their schools. 24. The majority of independent boarding school Heads would prefer the ISI model of peer review and inspection to be introduced into boarding inspection. This would mean inspection by experienced practitioners in boarding schools, rather than by personnel with expertise in different social care settings. 25. The majority of independent boarding school Heads would prefer one inspection event, with education and boarding inspected at the same time, which is more likely if one inspectorate is conducting the inspection, even though Ofsted found it very difﬁcult to manage in the state boarding schools. 26. The majority of Heads in state boarding schools would prefer their boarding welfare inspections to be conducted by people with expertise and experience in boarding—boarding sector professionals. 27. The majority of state boarding Heads would also like it to be one inspection event, but that is less important than having knowledgeable inspectors on the team. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by SCORE About SCORE SCORE is a partnership of six organisations, which aims to improve science education in UK schools and colleges by supporting the development and implementation of effective education policy. The partnership is currently chaired by Professor Graham Hutchings FRS and comprises the Association for Science Education, Institute of Physics, Royal Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, Science Council and Society of Biology. The SCORE partnership welcomes the opportunity to submit a response to the House of Commons Education Committee Inquiry on the role and purpose of Ofsted. Our response highlights the importance of subject speciﬁc inspections as part of the role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism. The response strongly recommends that: — Ofsted continues as an inspection system which is able to hold schools and colleges to account. However it should shift its emphasis more towards improving teaching and learning in both the inspected schools and colleges and across the system as a whole, including initial teacher education (ITE). Effective Ofsted inspections of ITE are crucial to ensure (and enhance) the impact of a high quality workforce. — Ofsted increases the number of subject speciﬁc inspections to provide statistically useful data on the impact of policies, structures and initiatives in school departments. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w124 Education Committee: Evidence

— The inspection process is drawn from a wide range of evidence, including subject speciﬁc inspections and should not focus exclusively on very narrow measures (such as 5 A*-C at GCSE). — Ofsted inspections provide a national, strategic view of the teaching and learning of schools and colleges. This is increasingly important in an environment where schools and colleges are experiencing a higher level of independence. For this reason, SCORE recommends all schools are subject to continued and regular inspection regardless of their previous performance ratings.

The Purposes of Inspection 1. The education system, and its inspection infrastructure, should be designed to help children’s learning. We need an inspection system which still holds schools to account but also shifts its emphasis to improving teaching and learning in both the inspected schools and colleges and across the system as a whole. 2. The case for a direct link between the present system of inspection and an improvement in children’s learning has yet to be made. Some schools and colleges identified as failing have gone on to improve, but others have not. Some schools and colleges which have been identified as good have then got worse. 3. It is Ofsted’s role to carry out rigorous, fair and representative inspections and, based on the evidence from these inspections, provide qualitative and quantitative feedback to schools and colleges that improve their teaching and learning. Furthermore, Ofsted should collect sufficient evidence at both subject and institutional level across the education system to find and disseminate good practice and to inform policy. 4. In an environment where more schools and colleges are experiencing a higher level of independence, it is particularly important that there is a national, strategic view and measure of the quality of teaching and learning in schools and colleges. In particular, we feel that all schools should be subject to continued and regular inspection regardless of their previous performance ratings.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 5. Carrying out subject specific inspections as part of Ofsted’s remit is essential, and should continue in order to help schools improve in specific areas. Ofsted currently carries out subject specific inspections in order to write subject reports, which should inform Government about whether the curriculum and its teaching is effective, and indicate to schools what outstanding practice looks like (for example, appropriate deployment of teachers and a good balance of subject specialist teachers). The number of these inspections should be increased to provide statistically useful data on the impact of policies, structures and initiatives in school departments. The need for this has increased with the forthcoming abolition of the National Strategies and the role they have played in collecting evidence and data from schools. 6. It would be useful to have clarification on whether Ofsted will take on the role of data collection (as has been assumed above). And, if not, how that data will be collected in future. 7. Only 30 primary schools are visited for primary science subject reports. This is the same level of visits the foundation subjects receive. However, science is a core subject, not a foundation subject. The other two core subjects (mathematics and English) each have 45 school visits to inform their subject-specific reports, which even then is not a statistically significant proportion of schools to draw any firm conclusions from. If science is to be considered a core subject in primary education, and we would argue that it is, it should be treated similarly to mathematics and English. With such small sample sizes, we can do no more than treat the subject inspection reports as a series of interesting case studies and this limits their effectiveness in improving schools. Ofsted declares that it is serious about subject work. The small sample of schools inspected in subject inspections would indicate otherwise. 8. Effective Ofsted inspections of initial teacher education are crucial to ensure (and enhance) the impact of a high quality workforce. 9. We strongly support the Select Committee’s recommendation that only schools that participate in a training partnership should be awarded the top grade in Ofsted inspection. We would like to see this extended to the department level for large departments (which will include science) in department reports. Furthermore, Ofsted should inspect the quality of support offered to trainees by their school-based mentors; currently, the existence and training of these mentors is checked by Ofsted when they inspect ITE establishments; and the quality of teaching is inspected in the schools. However, the quality of the mentoring provision for trainees in schools is slipping through the net. 10. In their inspections of ITE providers in the sciences, Ofsted should note the balance in the number of places offered for trainees in the different sciences. On the basis of this information providers should be encouraged by funders to provide at least as many places for physics and chemistry as for biology and, where possible, ITE establishments should be encouraged to take more physics trainees to try to redress the imbalance in teacher specialisms within the workforce.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 11. Inspection can be used to set aspirational goals for schools, helping them to progress and eventually become good or outstanding schools. Subject speciﬁc standards should be informed by dialogue with appropriate stakeholders. SCORE partners welcomed the opportunity to contribute to Ofsted’s recent subject speciﬁc inspection guidance consultation. This has ensured that evidence and experience provided by the subject communities is directly available to inspectors and schools. For science, this includes cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w125

reporting on laboratory facilities and resources, progression routes available to (and taken by) students and the qualifications and deployment of the workforce (including the spread and use of subject specialists). 12. SCORE supports renewed emphasis on a scientific approach to inspection, ensuring that inspectors are rigorous and methodical in their approach, including the support of subjective judgements with evidence. With respect to classroom practice, inspectors should be trusted to recognise good teaching and learning when they see it and be given the freedom to credit it. They should not require schools to be strictly bound by a rigorous framework of criteria that define what constitutes good and effective practice. 13. The subject inspectors within Ofsted are often hugely knowledgeable. Their expertise is underused in terms of helping teachers move forward. Whilst we understand that the number of speaking engagements a subject officer can undertake each year are limited, meetings with teachers are excellent opportunities for Ofsted to use their knowledge to promote outstanding practice, to take the challenge to others, point teachers in the right direction of approved resources and to promote genuine dialogue about improving science practice. Ofsted should enable and encourage this to happen more often.

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 14. Inspection teams should have access to subject speciﬁc professional development opportunities, to ensure that they have up-to-date awareness of their own subject and the best methods for inspecting its teaching. Often data is explained in ways that conﬂict with research evidence or interpretations assume a particular theoretical stance. These theoretical assumptions about learning, learners, knowledge and pedagogy need to be explicit and if possible alternative perspectives considered. This requires professional development related to education more widely. 15. If Ofsted itself does not currently have the expertise or resources to ensure that its inspections are fully valid and reliable, then there may well be a case for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the organisation to ensure that this happens.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism 16. Ofsted has an important role in accountability at the school level. The inspection process needs to draw on a wide range of evidence, including subject specific inspections. The relentless focus on very narrow measures (such as 5 A*-C at GCSE) by Ofsted and other agencies, has had a negative effect on teaching and learning and distorted the assessment system. The data from qualifications, which is currently used with a dual purpose (assessing schools as well as their students) should be replaced—or at least balanced— with other evidence and considered in more sophisticated ways. For example, overall measures of achievement often referred to in Ofsted subject reports should be examined in relation to sub-group performance by grade distribution, again taking careful account of the representativeness of the students who take up particular subjects. Otherwise teachers will continue to focus on improving achievement in a limited number of high stakes assessments. This sort of approach does not lead to better learning and deeper understanding but often a search for the easiest exam and drilling students to pass the test in order to satisfy the league tables. 17. Ofsted must distinguish in its work between accountability and improvement. A school’s accountability should not be affected by factors over which it has no control, for example its intake or resourcing. 18. As the diversity of the school system increases, and there is also an increase in autonomy for schools, Ofsted’s role in accountability needs to be clear. All pupils should have access to a broad and balanced science curriculum with appropriate pathways to vocational and academic qualifications. Ofsted’s role in ensuring that this is taking place is at present unclear. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Special Educational Consortium 1. About SEC 1.1 The Special Educational Consortium (SEC) is convened under the auspices of the Council for Disabled Children to protect and promote the interests of disabled children and children with special educational needs (SEN) in education. SEC is made up of 22 voluntary and professional organisations and provides a forum for discussion and to promote debate on special educational needs and disability issues. SEC deﬁnes its policies by identifying areas of consensus that exist among the wide range of groups represented within it.

2. Introduction 2.1 SEC is concerned about the low expectations and poor outcomes for disabled children and children identiﬁed as having special educational needs (SEN). The focus of our submission to The Committee is on the importance of Ofsted inspection in school accountability for progress and outcomes for disabled children and children with SEN. With changes proposed to school inspection, including the proposed removal of the school self-evaluation form, much of our submission is in the form of questions or principles we want to see in the new inspection arrangements. We would ask the Education Committee to use the current Inquiry to ensure that cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w126 Education Committee: Evidence

Ofsted has robust procedures in place for school and local authority accountability for disabled children and children with SEN.

2.2 SEC recognises the wide range of children who are identified as having SEN: — the small group of children who have complex needs and who, in addition to high quality teaching and learning, require intervention from a number of agencies to secure appropriate provision; — the wider group for whom, in addition to high quality teaching and learning, targeted provision may be needed and for whom schools may need to intervene at a group or individual level, sometimes drawing on support from outside the school; — SEC recognises that, amongst this wider group of children, there may be those who have fallen behind in their learning but may not have an underlying impairment. There is a significant overlap between these children and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.94 The single most effective action for these children is likely to be high quality teaching and learning. Inspection needs to hold schools to account for the progress of these children whether or not the SEN label has been appropriately applied; — SEC also recognises those children who, whilst performing at or near age-related expectations, may be significantly underperforming. They face specific barriers affecting particular areas of their learning and, in addition to high quality teaching and learning, may need targeted support. SEC sees it as vital that Ofsted inspection holds schools to account for the progress of and outcomes for all children identified as having SEN, along with other groups of vulnerable children.

3. Parents 3.1 Many parents of children with SEN feel that accountability for the progress of and outcomes for their children is weak. Published ‘league tables’ often create a hostile ethos at or around the time of admission, threshold measures may not recognise the progress made by children with SEN and many parents say they feel they are made to feel a nuisance, are left policing the system or have been encouraged to go to another school. They said the other school was better at SEN.95 SEC is concerned that any parent has been discouraged from sending their disabled child or their child with SEN to any school: this may amount to discrimination. Ofsted inspection should pick up the profile of the school intake and assess whether or not admissions reflect the local population. SEC considers that inspection should examine the profile of pupils at school entry, the pattern of admissions to schools and how that compares with other local schools and the nature of the local population. 3.2 Many parents do not know that they can complain, with other parents, to Ofsted about SEN provision at a school. SEC would like to know how Ofsted is raising parents’ awareness of the fact that they can complain to Ofsted. 3.3 It is important that the views of parents of children with SEN are gathered in a way that enables the inspection to address any concerns. To this end: SEC considers it is vital that the pre-inspection parent questionnaire should be carried out far enough in advance of the inspection to allow for the proper investigation of any issues identified by parents. The analysis of the pre-inspection parent questionnaire should continue to examine differences between the views of parents of children with SEN and those of children without SEN. The analysis of the pre-inspection parent questionnaire should continue to examine differences between the views of parents of children with SEN and those of children without SEN. 3.4 SEC recognises the sensitivities associated with asking parents questions about SEN and disability.96 Recognising the difficulty surrounding disclosure, work at the Universities of Bath and Bristol97 suggests that asking a wider range of questions may secure a more accurate answer. In their work they included questions about a learning difficulty, a disability, special educational need or medical condition.

4. SENAccountability 4.1 When Ofsted changed the framework for the inspection of schools in September 2009, it placed a sharper focus on the quality of provision and the achievement of vulnerable groups of children including disabled children and children with SEN. SEC welcomes this focus in the framework and sees it as critical that it is maintained in future inspection arrangements. 94 Department for Education (2010) Statistical First Release: Special Educational Needs in England 95 DCSF (2009) Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and parental conﬁdence 96 Dr Christine Rose (2006) Do you have a disability—yes or no? or is there a better way of asking? Guidance on disability disclosure and respecting conﬁdentiality. LSDA 97 Porter, J, Daniels, H, Georgeson, J, Feiler, A, Hacker, J, Tarleton, B, Gallop, V, Watson, D (2008) Disability Data Collection for Children’s Services. Research Report. Department for Children, Schools and Families, (DCSF-RR062/DCSF-RB062). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w127

SEC considers that the tighter focus of inspection on outcomes for vulnerable groups of children must be maintained in any new inspection arrangements. 4.2 If, as anticipated, schools are not longer required to complete the school self-evaluation form, what information will schools be expected to provide in advance of the inspection? What data will be used to pick up any questions about SEN and disability? SEC considers that data on progress and outcomes, admissions, exclusions and absence of children with SEN are vital. How will progress of children working below age- related expectations be picked up between inspections, see questions about data below? 4.3 If outstanding schools are not inspected for longer periods of time, what data will be examined in the intervening years? What SEND data in particular, given that outcomes for children with SEN are not necessarily reﬂected in the threshold measures used at the end of key stages? SEC would like to know how data on progress and outcomes, admissions. exclusions and absence of children with SEN will be monitored both as part of the inspection process and in between inspections, particularly where there are longer intervals between inspections.

5. SchoolsBecomingAcademies 5.1 Schools with an outstanding inspection judgment can now become academies more swiftly. Parents are reporting to organisations in SEC that the schools applying for academy status now are schools that have been more hostile to the admission of children with SEN in the past. Given the focus of the inspection framework since September 2009, SEC is confident that a judgment since then would have focused sufficiently on outcomes for vulnerable groups to be confident that an ‘outstanding’ judgment of a school was not compromised by poor quality provision for disabled children and children with SEN. 5.2 SEC would have less confidence that an outstanding judgment made under the framework that was in use before September 2009, took full account of the quality of the provision for and the progress of children with SEN. Where a school gained an “outstanding” judgment under the pre-2009 framework, SEC considers that an additional inspection under the new framework should be carried out as part of the process for approving a school for academy status. Any schools who do not have an outstanding judgment and who are applying for academy status should also be inspected to ensure the quality of their provision for children with SEN.

6. AlternativeProvision 6.1 Schools are using increasing amounts of alternative provision, particularly at key stage 4, for children who are disaffected, who have been absent from school or who have been excluded. Amongst these children are many who have special educational needs. Much of the provision is made by other educational institutions, is inspected under other inspection arrangements and, it is to be hoped, is of good quality. However, some alternative provision is not inspected under any arrangements. 6.2 We do not know how many children attend alternative provision that is not inspected. SEC’s concern is that some of our most vulnerable children attend such provision and that this will include many children with SEN. 6.3 We have no idea of the quality of this alternative provision. What curriculum entitlement do children have where they attend such provision? There is no assumption that it is not good provision, we understand that some of it may be excellent, but we simply do not know. Ofsted should inspect all provision made for children of school age.

7. LocalAuthorityInspection 7.1 Since the announcement that the Comprehensive Area Assessment was to be abandoned, it has not been clear how local authorities would be inspected. Yet there is huge variation in the quality of local authority work with vulnerable groups of children, including disabled children and children with SEN.98 Recent work by the National Strategies has also highlighted variation in the quality of the work of local authorities in reducing the exclusions of children with SEN.99 7.2 Local authorities have a signiﬁcant continuing role, with signiﬁcant impact on outcomes for vulnerable groups. Local authorities should be inspected with a focus on their role in relation to vulnerable groups of children. 7.3 Inspection should be proportionate and the frequency of inspection should take account of the judgments of quality at the previous inspection, as it does for schools. The monitoring of data in between inspections should also alert Ofsted to changing circumstances. 98 Brady, L et al (2010) Special Educational Needs and Disability—Understanding local variation in prevalence, service provision and support, National Children’s Bureau 99 The National Strategies (2010) Characteristics of effective practice in reducing disproportionate exclusions of pupils with Special Educational Needs http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/305659?uc=force_uj cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w128 Education Committee: Evidence

8. Data and RAISEonline 8.1 Ofsted commissions RAISEonline, the powerful interactive software that provides schools, school improvement partners and inspectors with data on pupil progress and attainment. However, there are shortcomings in the data on children working below age-related expectations. Children working below the level of the test do not have teacher assessment data entered into RAISEonline. This includes many children with SEN. The fact that the results are not entered means that accountability for, and indeed visibility of, the progress of and the outcomes for these children is poor. 8.2 For children working below level 1 of the national curriculum, P-level data is now collected annually by the Department for Education. This data and other data on the attainment of children working below expected levels at each stage needs to be included into RAISEonline, or any successor to RAISEonline, urgently. Data on the attainment of children working below age-related expectations needs to be included into RAISEonline as a matter of urgency. 8.3 There are other anomalies in the data in RAISEonline: the calculation of “contextual value added” (CVA) scores provides incentives for schools to identify children as having SEN. To do so improves their CVA score. This may have fuelled the increase in the numbers of children identiﬁed as having SEN, particularly those without a statement, where the percentage of children has increased from 14% in 2003 to 18.2% in 2010.100 SEN data should be removed from contextual value added scores. 8.4 At the same time, careful consideration should be given to the removal of contextual value added scores altogether. SEC would welcome their removal and supports a move to comparisons of progress by children’s age and prior attainment. Patterns of progress show that children who start a key stage ahead of their peers are also likely to be on a faster learning trajectory. Taking this into account could lead to better measures of the value that schools add to children’s attainment and holds the potential for a measure of children’s progress that could apply to all children, including those on the lower levels of the national curriculum and the tiny percentage of children who may be on the P-levels, below level 1 of the national curriculum, throughout most of their school career.101 8.5 This is not to say that other data such as deprivation, SEN and other factors should not be collected. This is relevant data, showing the circumstances of each school. However, this data should not be taken into account in comparisons of children’s progress. Such comparisons should be made by age and prior attainment.102

9. Training ofInspectors 9.1 SEC welcomes the training of inspectors on SEN and disability that has been undertaken in anticipation of the new duty on HMCI to report on the quality of provision for children with SEN.103 SEC understands that all inspectors have now been trained. 9.2 However, SEC has some continuing concerns and would like the Committee to probe: — how inspectors will be updated on new data on the progress of children working below age-related expectations. New data was published recently and is now on the National Strategies website. How will inspectors make themselves familiar with the new data? And how will they be kept up to date until the data is available within RAISEonline? — how inspection judgments will be quality assured in respect of SEN and disability. As children’s progress and attainment diverges from age-related expectations everyone: parents, teachers, governors, local authority ofﬁcers and inspectors alike, all lack the usual benchmarks of progress. In these circumstances it becomes both harder to judge the quality of provision and more crucial that it is judged accurately. How will Ofsted secure and maintain quality inspection, particularly in more specialist settings? SEC asks the Committee to probe how Ofsted: — will maintain up-to-date SEN and disability skills for all inspectors; and — how they will secure high quality judgments in specialist areas of SEN and disability.

10. OfstedReview 10.1 SEC welcomed the recent Ofsted review.104 It highlighted the importance of Ofsted’s thematic reviews and raised key questions about the direction of policy. One of the shortcomings of provision identiﬁed was the 100 Department for Education (2010) Statistical First Release: Special Educational Needs in England 101 About 2,500 or 0.4% of pupils are on one or more of the P scales at the end of key stages 2 and 3, Data set 2: the national P scales data collection 2009: http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/439233 102 DCSF (2009) The Progression Guidance 2009–10: Improving data to raise attainment and maximise the progress of learners with special educational needs, learning difﬁculties and disabilities 103 Section 1, Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 104 Ofsted (2010) A statement is not enough cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w129

failure of schools to evaluate the impact of the SEN provision that they make. SEC would like the Committee to probe how this issue might be picked up in institutional inspection.

11. InConclusion 11.1 SEC recognises the direction that the Coalition Government wants to go in giving professionals the freedom to act in the best interests of children. This needs to be balanced with a clear focus on the groups of children who do not ﬂourish in the system and for whom, despite some welcome and impressive outcomes from some schools, we do not secure good outcomes nationally. 11.2 Vulnerable groups of children need to be the focus of continuing inspection work by Ofsted. They need to be seen as the clients of our education service. Inspection needs to be designed with this in mind. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Napo Introduction 1. Napo is the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation staff. In the Family Court Napo represents Practitioners (Family Court Advisors/Children’s Guardians and Service Managers employed by Cafcass). Cafcass Practitioners have played a significant role in the Family Courts. 2. Since the inception of Cafcass the service it provides to the Courts, and therefore for children, has deteriorated. Cafcass combined the Family Court Welfare Service, the Children’s Guardian Services and the children work of the Official Solicitor. The Green and White papers that led to the formation of Cafcass stated that all these services were highly regarded. Since the inception of Cafcass the service it provides to the Courts, and therefore for children, has deteriorated. This deterioration accelerated significantly after the first report about Cafcass by Ofsted in January 2008. While there are a number of factors which led to this decline Napo is certain that the main factor was the change in the organisation forced by the Ofsted reports. 3. There is a high level of consensus between the Judiciary, Barristers and Solicitors, Napo members and other organisations in the Family Justice System about the part Cafcass should play in the Family Justice System. This is not a consensus that is shared by the senior managers of Cafcass or Ofsted. Cafcass senior managers announced to their staff several years ago that Cafcass is no longer a Court service. They said that it is now a safeguarding service. Ofsted inspectors have interviewed a number of Judges whenever they have inspected a part of Cafcass. However they have only thought one comment from a Judge justified inclusion in any report. This was a critical comment. 4. As a consequence of the views held by Ofsted, a very large proportion of Cafcass financial and human resources have been diverted to change Cafcass into their vision of what it should be. This has meant the service Cafcass practitioners have provided to the Family Court, and the children it serves, has significantly deteriorated. 5. Cafcass practitioners have always been concerned to ensure that the children they work with are protected, as far as possible, from being harmed. This is a significant part of the work of any organisation in this country that works with children. Similarly Cafcass practitioners, as far as possible, try to protect the adults they work with from domestic violence. 6. The consequence of the changes instigated by Ofsted have resulted in children being less protected and the adults being less protected from domestic violence. Cafcass senior managers have said that the main cause of these problems is the increase in care proceedings following the publicity about the death of Baby Peter. The number of care proceedings dropped prior to the publicity about Baby Peter. This followed the increase in Court fees that Local Authorities had to pay and in Napo’s view the increase was partly a “bounce back”. More significantly the number of care proceedings in 1998 was similar to the current level. At that time Children’s Guardians provided a full service at a lower cost. Cases were allocated within 48 hours. This has never been achieved since the inception of Cafcass. 7. We have divided our response into two parts. The first part deals with Napo’s description and analysis of the service Cafcass should, and did, provide, together with the service it provides now. The second part answers the questions the Education Select Committee has asked. Where the answer is already covered in the first part of our response we have indicated this.

The Service Cafcass Should Provide and the Service it Currently Provides The service prior to changes instigated by Ofsted 8. Private Family Proceedings are usually about disputes between parents following divorce or separation about where a child will live and what contact s/he will have with the parents s/he will have with the parents they do not live with. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w130 Education Committee: Evidence

9. In Public Family Law proceedings a Cafcass practitioner appoints a Solicitor to represent the child in Court. The Children's Guardian and Solicitor will work closely together to ensure the management and outcome of the proceedings are the best that can be achieved for the child. The Children's Guardian independently assesses the application before the Court and recommends to the Court what Court Orders (if any) should be made. In Care Proceedings the Children's Guardian would read the Local Authority files, attend Local Authority meetings, interview the child and significant adults in his or her life (eg Parents, Grandparents), and make enquiries of the other agencies involved (eg Education and Health). The Children's Guardian was involved throughout the case in advising on the management of the case in the Court. This included attending all Court Hearings, advising on arrangements for the care of the child during the proceedings, and advising what Orders the Court needs to make prior to the final Order at the end of the proceedings. The Children's Guardian and the Solicitor would discuss with the other parties what expert assessments are required and they would take the lead in appointing and instructing any expert appointed. The Children's Guardian would advise the Court on what final Orders should be made and whether the Local Authority Care Plan should be approved by the Court. The Children's Guardian used to work closely with the Local Authority and other parties throughout the case, so often by the time the final Hearing took place most of the issues had been resolved and there was little to decide. 10. In Private Family Law a Cafcass Practitioner would advise the Court on what Order (if any) should be made. The Family Court Advisor would talk to the child and interview other significant adults in the child’s life and talk to other agencies (such as Education and Health). Family Court Advisors would try to work with parents throughout their involvement so that a solution could be found which is the best outcome that can be achieved for the child, and which is an outcome the parents can accept. Sometimes parents are unable to agree all the issues, and on some occasions they are unable to agree any issues. In these circumstances the Family Court Advisor’s report to the Court will make a recommendation to the Court that would be the best outcome that can be achieved.

Proportionate Practice 11. Cafcass practitioners are now carrying an average caseload of 25 cases rather than an average of 12 cases, as agreed in a workload agreement in 2004. This agreement was based on an analysis of a substantial amount of data, much of it gathered prior to Cafcass’ existence. The average timings had a considerable empirical basis. The average caseloads have doubled and the form filling and other bureaucratic requirements are far greater than in 2004. The new caseload is not agreed, has no empirical basis and is not acknowledged as existing by senior managers. Nevertheless it is consistent in most parts of the country. 12. Cafcass has diverted considerable resources from the front line to appoint a range of staff to check the work of practitioners and bring into place the kind of service Ofsted insists upon. 13. Problems with the increased rate of work became obvious initially in London during September 2009 because in addition to the increase in work Cafcass was able to halve the practitioner workforce by not giving any further work to self-employed practitioners. Self-employed practitioners were 50% of the London practitioner resource. Subsequently Cafcass was given more money and used some of it to use self-employed staff. 14. Napo was told that practitioners would be given detailed advice about what to do and what not to do by service managers. Service managers also have very high workloads and have not been able to give this advice. Many practitioners receive very little supervision and allocation by e-mail continues to be common. 15. Some general advice has been given about what does not need to be done. In public family law work this has included not reading Local Authority files; reading the minutes of Local Authority meetings rather than attending them; interviewing parents and others by telephone rather than having face to face meetings; de-allocating cases during quiet periods and having a “watching brief”, and not attending many Court Hearings including Finding of Fact Hearings. The Children’s Guardian’s job is to independently assess the evidence, analysis, and planning of the Local Authority. It is difficult to see how this can be achieved if the Children’s Guardian does not read the Local Authority file, relies on the minutes of meetings to know what is happening and ceases to be involved at all during parts of a case. Napo has been told that during the “watching brief” period the Guardian will become active if advised to do so by the Children’s Solicitor and the Local Authority. The current situation is that it is the Guardian who generally keeps the Children’s Solicitor informed. If the Local Authority is about to take some action that would concern the Children’s Guardian they are unlikely to contact the Children’s Guardian and say “We are about to do something you will be unhappy with, please arrange a Court Hearing to stop us”. Similarly in both Private and Public Law Cafcass practitioners are undertaking a social assessment. This means visiting families and children in their homes and seeing them interacting together. Such an assessment should not be undertaken by telephone but this continues, despite the fact that staff cannot ensure that a party is safe to speak by phone (a parent could be living with a controlling partner and may not be free to speak openly about their views). Again safety of adults and children is compromised. 16. Children’s Guardians have always attended Finding of Fact Hearings in the past. An important part of a Children’s Guardian’s work is to give instructions to the child’s Solicitor, which they cannot do if they are not present at a Court Hearing. In addition a Children's Guardian will learn a great deal more by hearing the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w131

evidence, observing the witnesses and hearing the arguments then they would from simply reading the judgment and being told what happened by the child’s Solicitor (this comment does not imply any criticism of the Solicitor). 17. Cafcass has become increasingly reliant on a “Duty Service” during the past three years. Children are not allocated a practitioner for long periods, but they are allocated to a Duty Service. The Chief Executive Officer said on 7 September to the Public Accounts Committee that up to 1,000 cases are currently held in the Duty Service. These cases are then counted as allocated. This is a much less efficient use of practitioner time because several people have to read records (up to 14 lever arch files) and talk to other significant people in the case. It increases the stress for children because they will see several Cafcass practitioners and it is dangerous because several people can never know a case as well as one person. 18. The Cafcass Chief Executive says he is proud that his organisation has “absorbed” a substantial amount of extra work. The National Audit Office says that practitioners have become more productive. The reality is that practitioners are working evenings and weekends to provide a minimal service. Sickness due to stress is endemic. The current situation is not sustainable. 19. The delays in allocation have caused an increase in the time proceedings take to complete. This has led to additional costs in Court time and in Solicitors time. The limit in the work that Cafcass practitioners can do has meant that Courts have had much less information leading to poorer outcomes for children. In some cases there has been very little input at all. The Chief Executive of Cafcass has said that it is his intention in future that most cases will not have a Children's Guardian appointed to them. 20. In private law often a Family Support Worker (people with experience of working with children, but not qualified Social Workers) undertakes work with the children and has not met the parents and often has not met the children prior to meeting them for a formal meeting to elicit their wishes and feelings. Family Court Advisors prepare the report on the basis of the FSW’s work with the child. There is no overall ownership of the work by one practitioner and this can lead to problems when the FCA gives evidence at final hearings. Invariably attempts are made by a Lawyer representing parents, or the Local Authority, to discredit the work of the FCA, claiming that it is disjointed, hurried and incomplete. Sometimes reports are done solely by a FSW about complex issues or cases involving Domestic Violence or Safeguarding risks. FSWs are not qualified to undertake such assessments, and again this places children and adults at risk. Often private law work which has been held in a backlog is completed within 5 to 10 working days where in the past 10 weeks was the required period of adjournment to allow time for a proper assessment. A longer period gives parents chance to think issues through and they often become more child centred (as they often were before their separation). Again, FCA’s are criticised for this at hearings with questions about whether a better or more complete piece of work could have been done with more time—the answer invariably has to be yes. 21. Courts around the country are giving less weight to Cafcass practitioners’ evidence and assessments. Proportionate practice will lead to practitioners becoming less and less useful in the Family Justice System, which will lead to worse and less safe outcomes for children.

Use ofResources The growing bureaucracy 22. When Cafcass came into existence on 1 April 2001 its management structure between Chief Executive and Team Manager (now Service Manager) was an Operations Director and ten Regional Directors. This has increased significantly, particularly after Ofsted began inspecting Cafcass. Today there are three Operations Directors, Assistant Directors, Deputy Operation Directors and twenty-one Heads of Service. In addition each of the three Operations Areas have three Heads of Service (Quality Improvement), and they have several Quality Improvement Managers. There are also teams of Complaints Managers, Children’s Rights teams and a large number of policy advisors and Human Resources advisors. The appointment of a Deputy Operations Director was very recent. A recent Job Evaluation Panel in Cafcass largely looked at new National Office jobs. 23. Cafcass financial reports show that in 2006–07 51 staff were employed at head office, at a cost of £3.36 million. In 2007–08 the number of staff had increased to 79 at a cost of £4.7 million, and by 2008–09, the staff complement had risen to 108 and the total cost of head office was £11.1 million, including temporary staff and secondees. Belatedly, the expenditure at head office for the current financial year is likely to fall. 24. In its submission to the Munro review Cafcass states “The term practitioner is used by Cafcass to describe its workforce, which is mainly registered social workers, but sometimes family support workers supervised by registered social workers. On 31 March 2010, Cafcass employed 1,022 family court advisers (Social Workers), 78 family support workers and 116 service managers. (National Audit Office report 28 July 2010) Cafcass employs some 2,200 staff. It is difficult to get exact figures of how many employees are actually involved in face to face work with children and families because Cafcass classifies a wide range of employees as “front line staff” including Human Resources Advisors. However the proportion of the staff employed by Cafcass who directly work with children and families (including Service Managers) is about 50% at most. The other 50% are employed in monitoring work, gathering statistics, and developing policy. 25. Even the 50% of staff who are able to work with children spend much of their time doing other things. Our members tell us they spend 80% of their time in front of computers. Cafcass have received the same cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w132 Education Committee: Evidence

message. In their submission to the Munro enquiry they say their staff have continuously called for more time to work with children rather than form ﬁlling. This change has been a direct result of demands from Ofsted.

26. Cafcass has recently claimed that 91.5% of its staff are frontline. These figures do not match the National Audit Office figures and they are either inaccurate, or include many employees who are not front line, such as Human Resources staff and ‘Quality Improvement’ staff.

27. The case recording system has been in a continuous state of change. Initially file dividers had the name of the section of the file they covered. They were replaced with dividers with numbers on them, and a sheet at the front of the file stating what number related to what section. This facilitated frequent changes in the recording system. The case recording system is currently undergoing a further revision. In addition the recording system continues to be divided between a paper file and an electronic file. This makes it difficult to know where to look for information about a particular child and again compromises the safety of children and adults.

28. Following the employment of the current Chief Executive the organisation has re-organised on many occasions with the next re-structure beginning barely after the last one had been implemented. This has increased since Ofsted began inspecting Cafcass. A further “Transformation Programme” is currently in “progress”. This constant change is one reason for the large number of Policy Ofﬁcers, Quality Improvement Managers and Human Resources staff. The work itself has remained the same. Cafcass practitioners largely work with children who are the subject of care proceedings, or whose parents cannot agree their care arrangements, usually following the separation of the parents. The causes of these problems have not changed for a great many years.

29. It is important to make clear that Napo acknowledges that a bureaucracy is necessary to run any large organisation. There does need to be some regulation and guidelines, and some means of making sure practitioners and other people in the organisation are remaining within guidelines. Bureaucracy in Cafcass and Local Authority Children’s services has developed far beyond this and has become the main function of the organisation.

Human Resources

30. Cafcass has also had a difﬁcult relationship with its employed staff, particularly since Ofsted has been inspecting it. During 2007 Cafcass’ own survey concluded that 70% of employed staff were anti-Cafcass. Napo’s interpretation of that statistic is that they were against the position taken by senior managers of Cafcass. In fact Cafcass staff have always had a very strong commitment to their work. Jonathan Tross (the second Cafcass Chief Executive who had a very wide experience in the Civil Service) said he had never come across a group of staff with such a strong commitment to their work.

31. This relationship deteriorated further following a managers’ conference on 21 October 2008. Our service manager members reported that they were told that they now “had the tools to crack down hard’ and “they would be losing staff”. Napo found itself in the unprecedented position of having to represent some 10% of its staff in formal proceedings. Many of these people had been highly respected by the local Judiciary and other professionals working in the Family Justice Sector. Again many experienced and very competent practitioners left the service.

32. This change in attitude followed several adverse Ofsted reports the outcome of which was a radical change in the priorities of practitioners and service managers. The change was from spending time working with children and families to completing complex records. This change was strongly resisted by a workforce who had a high commitment to their work. This led to an increasingly punitive and bullying culture. To begin with Cafcass staff who engaged in professional debate outside the organisation were punished, later practitioners were summonsed to a meeting with their Head of Service if they made any critical comments in team meetings. Recently Napo has received reports from some members that they have been threatened with disciplinary action if they made critical comments about Cafcass in private conversations with each other.

33. Ofsted reported that Cafcass was not good at taking disciplinary action against staff who resisted the changes Ofsted sought. Staff did this because they had a high commitment to providing a good service for children.

34. Unsurprisingly Cafcass engagement with its staff has continued to decline, and this was highlighted by the National Audit Ofﬁce in its report about Cafcass on 28 July 2010 as a major problem.

35. During the six months to December 2009, the average turnover of Cafcass staff (adjusted as to an annual ﬁgure) in the North was 10.37%. This rose to 19% to 20% in some Head of Service Areas. In the Central area the average staff turnover was 11.69%, but again as high as 20% in one Head of Service Area. The turnover of the South area was 12.07%, rising to 20% in some Head of Service Areas and 33% in one Head of Service Area. This was the Cornwall, Devon and Somerset area where staff have usually stayed for many years in the past. Cafcass have been unwilling to give these ﬁgures to Napo for 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w133

Professional freedom 36. Prior to the inception of Cafcass practitioners enjoyed a relatively high degree of professional autonomy when compared to Social Workers employed by the Local Authority. This continued for a long period after Cafcass came into existence. One setting where this made a difference was at Court Hearings. When Social Workers gave evidence it was often clear that someone else had made decisions in the case and they often struggled to explain a decision they had not made. Cafcass practitioners were more credible witnesses because they were explaining their own analysis and decisions. They also were prepared to listen to new arguments, and examine new evidence, and change their view if necessary. Local Authority Social Workers did not have the authority to change their views and would often doggedly defend the Local Authority’s position. 37. It is important to emphasise that practitioners were held to account at Court Hearings. Unlike Local Authority Social Workers they would prepare regular reports which would summarise their work, and the evidence and analysis their recommendations were based on. These reports would be regularly checked by a manager. When a practitioner was newly employed, or problems were identified, they would be managed more closely. Ofsted held the view that Cafcass practitioners should be much more closely managed. This has led to practitioners spending a considerable amount of time producing plans and other records. Practitioners would have planned their work in the past, but not in such formal written detail. This detail often served little purpose. One example of this is a practitioner who was told to produce a five page plan for an interview with an eight year old boy. The boy was enjoying his summer holidays at the time. He did not want to spend time talking about difficult issues. He preferred to be playing football with his friends. The practitioner had to abandon the plan and think of other ways of engaging with the child as the interview took place. 38. At the present time, at Napo’s instigation, Cafcass has agreed that its practitioners cannot be told what their view is, and if a manager disagrees with their conclusion then s/he must go to Court to explain the conclusion. 39. Napo is not arguing for practitioners to be unaccountable, and to be allowed to do what they like. Clearly that could lead to dangerous situations. It is arguing for Social Workers to have the same professional freedom that other professions enjoy. In Napo’s view this would not only improve practice, it would also cost less. 40. This lack of autonomy can lead to Local Authority Social Workers not taking responsibility for decisions that have been made, and looking to their managers to tell them what to do. In the past some Directors of Social Services have said that they would like their Social Workers to have the professional freedom that Cafcass practitioners have. Unfortunately the reverse has happened. 41. Cafcass practitioners in both private and public family law have to have the confidence and ability to stand up, when necessary, to the Local Authority and other professionals. It is not a job (to quote the Chief Executive of Cafcass) for “shrinking violets”. Napo is concerned that in the future Cafcass practitioners will not be people who can do this.

Ofsted 42. In Napo’s view much of the responsibility for the deterioration in Cafcass and Social Work services for children, and the increase in bureaucracy, can be laid at Ofsted’s door. There is widespread dissatisfaction with Ofsted. The National Association of Head Teachers has recently called for complete review and significant change in Ofsted. The National Union of Teachers, the University and College Union and the Association of Lecturers and Teachers share this view, as does Napo. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services has said that Ofsted should not be inspecting social care agencies. 43. It is difficult to measure outcomes in Social Work and there has been a trend both in Social Work, as well as other services, to make important what can easily be measured rather than find ways to measure what is important. Ofsted relies heavily on inspection of files and written accounts of what had happened and why decisions have been made. One of the main activities of Cafcass has been to change its record keeping system so that it can provide the information that Ofsted requires, rather than the information necessary for the Social Work task being undertaken. Napo fully supports the need for good records but keeping records should not become the main activity of Social Workers. The Cafcass Chief Executive estimates that each inspection (of some 50 practitioners) cost Cafcass between £180,000 and £250,000. 44. Ofsted appeared to be intent on finding evidence to support its perception of Cafcass rather than gather evidence and then look at what conclusions could be drawn from that evidence. Ofsted stated in its reports that local Judges made a large number of contributions when asked for evidence, but in only one occasion did it refer to any of this evidence in its reports. The comment it referred to was a negative one. Some Judges have become so frustrated with this that they have spoken out on local radio. On the other hand Ofsted gave a lot of space in their reports to the views of parents and concluded in one report that “only” 70% of parents in private family disputes were satisfied with their experience of Cafcass. 70% is the highest level of customer satisfaction reported by the Consumer Association for mobile phone companies and utility companies. These companies simply supply services and make charges for them. The situation with Cafcass is very different. Parents who do not get the Contact Order or Residence Order that they seek, or have their children removed and adopted, are unlikely to be satisfied with this experience. In Napo’s view 70% is a high level of satisfaction cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w134 Education Committee: Evidence

in these circumstances. In early Ofsted reports much of the evidence was anecdotal: in later reports there was an absence of evidence.

45. Napo ofﬁcers and ofﬁcials met with senior Ofsted managers to discuss their concerns. They were told that two reports are published after each inspection, one aimed at the general public and a second with detailed evidence and analysis for senior managers. Senior managers have told us that they have never seen such a report.

46. Ofsted says that Cafcass now provides a better service as a result of its intervention. The true situation is best summarised by an article published on 23 March 2010 in Community Care. The article reported the following comments on the service Cafcass now provides. Caroline Little, co-chair of the Association of Lawyers for Children, said “There are still hundreds of unallocated cases and there is no sense of children coming ﬁrst. Often, duty guardians haven't spoken to parties involved in the case or even seen the ﬁles.” Margaret Wilson, chair of the Family Courts Committee at the Magistrates' Association added “We need proper welfare advice and we need to know these vulnerable children are being allocated a named guardian throughout the entire case.” Anthony Douglas is reported as saying “such a service resembled a golden age and is no longer sustainable.”

47. In summary, large sums of money have been expended to move from a golden age to a much poorer service where there is no sense of children coming ﬁrst. In Napo’s view if the Cafcass budget were better spent, so that a much higher proportion of Cafcass employees were front line practitioners, the service could return to that provided in ‘the golden age’ and possibly better.

48. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organizations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit): The purpose of the inspection should be ensuring public services are satisfactory and value for money. Ofsted inspections do not do this. Largely paper based inspections are unlikely to obtain an accurate picture of what is happening. In Napo’s view Inspectors need to have much greater understanding of the service they inspect. Inspections that observe practice, and in which Inspectors talk to staff are more likely to produce an accurate picture of what is happening. Any changes necessary would be more likely to succeed if Inspectors met with practitioners and discussed any concerns they have and listened to the practitioner’s comments and explanations.

49. Too often inspectors judge practitioners’ work by criteria that practitioners were not aware of, and often do not agree are valid. Reports should be a lot more than a series of statements if they are to be credible. They need to include detailed evidence and analysis. This much more likely to involve front line staff in a positive manner and make it much more likely that any changes will be effective, and will happen. The current practice of top down pronouncements in blunt and unpleasant terms, concentrating on ﬁles rather than talking to people, and little dialogue with practitioners has led to the dysfunctional service described above.

50. Napo believes Inspections are important and that the current inspection regime deprives organizations of information that could be helpful in making services better.

51. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement—Napo is unable to comment on this.

52. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work—This has been covered above.

53. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process—This is also covered above. We have set out below two revealing examples of current practice: (a) Six practitioner reports were examined using the same criteria by Cafcass managers and Ofsted Inspectors. Cafcass managers graded all six as inadequate, Oftsed Inspectors graded two as inadequate, two as satisfactory and two as good. (b) Initial Court reports contain some background information, addendum reports do not. Despite this being explained, Inspectors judged all addendum reports to be inadequate because they had no background information.

54. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process—The answer to this question is contained in earlier comments.

55. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate—Napo believes Ofsted should be radically reformed and broken up into smaller units, so that inspectors and managers at all levels have substantial experience, qualiﬁcations and knowledge of the services they are inspecting.

56. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy—Napo is unable to comment on this question. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w135

Concluding Comment 57. At its’ inception Cafcass covered England and Wales. Wales has been covered by Cafcass Cymru for several years. It is inspected by the Welsh Assembly. There is a stark contrast between Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru. The latter continues to be highly regarded by the Courts and provides a better service for children. 58. Ofsted would command far greater credibility if it listened to critical comment rather than dismiss all of it as coming from vested interests. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Stonewall 1. Stonewall welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education Committee’s inquiry into Ofsted’s role and performance. 2. Stonewall is a national organisation that has campaigned for equality for the 3.7 million lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people across Britain since 1989. In 2005, Stonewall launched its Education for All campaign against homophobic bullying to create a safe and inclusive learning environment in which all young people can focus on their education and have the opportunity to fulﬁl their potential. To achieve this, Stonewall works with national and regional government and national agencies such as Ofsted. In March 2010 Stonewall trained Ofsted inspectors to help prevent and tackle homophobic bullying in Britain’s schools as part of Inspector Development Seminars. 3. Stonewall works with 42 local authorities through the Education Champions programme and supports them in helping their local schools tackle homophobic bullying. 4. The Youth Volunteering Programme empowers young people to run their own campaigns against homophobic bullying in their schools and local communities and encourages active citizenship. 5. Stonewall also works with employers through the Diversity Champions programme and helps them make their workplace one where everyone can be themselves. Ofsted is a member of the Diversity Champions programme. Stonewall welcomes Ofsted’s Single Equality Scheme 2010–2013 and that Ofsted aims to achieve a place in the top 100 employers in Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index in the next three years.

Summary 6. Ofsted’s purpose of inspection should be to ensure high quality of teaching and leadership, behaviour and safety, and pupil attainment. It should promote good behaviour and drive up attainment for all children and young people. Furthermore, Ofsted should help schools tackle homophobic bullying effectively and teach inclusively in line with the Equality Act 2010 and the forthcoming Single Equality Duty. 7. Many teachers do not feel they have the conﬁdence or skills to tackle homophobic bullying and to teach inclusively, leading to many children and young people experiencing homophobic bullying. The result is a negative impact on pupils’ attainment, engagement and safety. Ofsted inspections can therefore have a great impact on school improvement. This can be achieved by ensuring that all teachers and school staff receive high quality training on how to effectively tackle homophobic bullying and on how to teach inclusively. Schools should also be aware of best practice to create a safe and inclusive learning environment. 8. Ofsted’s performance in carrying out its work will be evaluated by those affected by it. This requires Ofsted to break down barriers which might deter vulnerable groups, such as young people who experience bullying and LGB parents, to engage with Ofsted. 9. Consistency and quality of Ofsted inspection teams can be achieved by ensuring an inclusive organisational culture where diversity is valued. It furthermore requires addressing inspectors’ training needs to enable them to identify homophobic bullying and recognise where the needs of LGB young people are not met. 10. Homophobic bullying and diversity issues with regard to sexual orientation have not been given much weight in the past and are therefore likely to require additional attention and resources. This is also to ensure the Government’s pledge to help schools tackle homophobic bullying is implemented effectively. 11. It is very important that schools operating with greater autonomy can be held to account on issues including homophobic bullying, equality and diversity and compliance with the Equality Act 2010. It is therefore very important that clear, simple and accessible mechanisms are in place for reporting grievances to Ofsted and for making complaints.

Purposes ofInspection 12. Stonewall welcomes the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove’s, announcement that Ofsted should inspect the quality of teaching, the quality of leadership, behaviour and safety, and pupil attainment. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w136 Education Committee: Evidence

13. Ofsted’s inspections should serve the purpose of promoting good behaviour and drive up attainment for all children and young people, ensuring they are able to reach their full potential. In order to facilitate this, Ofsted inspections should ensure that children and young people can focus on their education and attainment, free from fear of bullying. 14. Ofsted should therefore help combat discriminatory behaviour and encourage respect for difference and diversity. This includes ensuring that the Government’s pledge to help schools tackle homophobic bullying, as stated in the Government document “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality”, is put into practice. Tackling all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying is also of great importance in the endeavour to guarantee pupils’ and young people’s safety. 15. Ofsted plays an important role in ensuring compliance with the Equality Act 2010 which from April 2011 will require public bodies to eradicate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and further good relations through the new Single Equality Duty. 16. An important part of realising the objectives above is to ensure the quality and effectiveness of leadership, creating inclusive learning environments and promoting a high quality of teaching which is relevant to all young people. This is also necessary to ensure all children and young people are prepared for life in a diverse society and are able to play an active role in creating a more cohesive, a more responsible and a more engaged society. 17. As detailed below, Stonewall research has identiﬁed that most teachers currently do not feel equipped to meet the needs of LGB young people and provide them with the information they need in order to stay safe. Nine out of ten school staff have not received any training on how to tackle homophobic bullying. In order to ensure all pupils can focus on their education and fulﬁl their potential, Ofsted inspections should ensure that all school staff receive training which prepares them to effectively combat homophobic bullying and teach inclusively. 18. Stonewall has produced a great number of resources which can help prepare school staff. These resources include guides for teachers and school staff on challenging homophobic language; supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual young people and on including different families. Materials also comprise Spell It Out, a training DVD for secondary school teachers. 19. Ofsted should seek to highlight examples of best practice in all the above areas and promote their replication.

The Impact of the Inspection Process on School Improvement 20. Ofsted inspections can have a great impact on school improvement by ensuring that homophobic bullying is tackled and that by teaching inclusively, all children and young people receive information relevant to them are prepared for life in a diverse society. 21. Section 28 of the local government act prohibited the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ in schools and labelled gay families as ‘pretend families’. Although repealed in 2003, this legislation has left a legacy of homophobic attitudes and bullying in many education institutions and schools. Stonewall’s Education for All campaign was launched in 2005 to combat the effects of this legacy through research and by producing resources for schools and those working with young people. 22. Stonewall’s 2007 research on the experiences of LGB young people at school, The School Report, highlighted that 65% of LGB young people have experienced homophobic bullying and seven out of ten state that this has had an impact on their school work. Half of LGB pupils who have experienced homophobic bullying have skipped school at some point because of it. One in five has skipped school more than six times. 23. Furthermore 58% of lesbian and gay pupils who experience bullying never report it. If they do, 62% of the time nothing is done. This is an indicator that the environment in many settings such as schools and colleges is not one where pupils feel they can speak to adults about homophobic bullying nor feel future occurrences will be prevented. However, LGB young people who go to schools that state homophobic bullying is wrong are nearly 70% more likely to feel safe at school and 60% more likely not to have been bullied. 24. The Teachers’ Report, based on a YouGov poll with over 2,000 primary and secondary school teachers showed that teachers think homophobic bullying as the most common form of bullying after bullying because of weight. However, two in three secondary school staff and more than two in five primary school staff who hear homophobic language such as ‘you’re so gay’ or ‘that’s so gay’ do not always respond. 25. The Teachers’ Report also highlighted that nine out of ten primary and secondary school teachers and non-teaching staff have not received any specific training on how to tackle homophobic bullying. 26. More than a quarter of secondary school staff (28%) say they would not feel confident in supporting a pupil who decided to come out to them as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Forty per cent would not feel confident in providing pupils with information, advice and guidance on gay issues. This means that the needs of LGB young people are often not met. This lack of a supportive environment can mean that young people who experience homophobic bullying are at a greater risk of not achieving their full potential. It also means that many young people are not adequately prepared for life in a diverse society. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w137

27. The School Report also found that seven out of ten LGB young people have never been taught about lesbian and gay people or seen lesbian and gay issues addressed in class. However, those pupils who have been taught about lesbian and gay issues in a way they ﬁnd positive, are also more likely to feel supported at school. They are 40% more likely to feel part of their school community and feel that their school notices when they are good at something. They are also 60% more likely to be happy at school and 40% more likely to feel respected. 28. Inclusive teaching decreases homophobic bullying and pupils also need to receive relevant information which empowers them to make informed decisions about their personal wellbeing. If taught well, high quality sex and relationship education contributes to that and is invaluable in providing young people with an education that reﬂects the reality and diversity of modern Britain. 29. Children and young people who don’t feel included or who don’t feel their family is recognised are likely to be less engaged in learning and those unable to concentrate on their education because of fear of bullying are unlikely to achieve their full potential and play an active part in creating a more cohesive, more engaged and more responsible society. 30. Therefore Ofsted can help schools improve their performance by inspecting for these factors and by highlighting and disseminating good practice. 31. Ofsted inspections and regulations furthermore play a crucial role in ensuring high quality of school staff training which enables head teachers, teachers and other school staff to help all pupils achieve their full potential in an inclusive environment.

ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarrying out itsWork 32. Ofsted’s performance in carrying out its work will be evaluated mainly by those affected by inspections and by its service users. In order to ensure Ofsted’s performance meets its aims and objectives, it is therefore important to monitor the complaints it receives for any issues affecting marginalised and potentially vulnerable groups such as young people experiencing homophobic bullying and gay parents. This requires engaging diverse groups to ensure they feel able to log complaints with Ofsted on issues relating to discrimination and other areas and to participate visibly. 33. In order for pupils, parents and other service users to feel able to report grievances relating to sexual orientation or homophobic bullying, they have to know that their complaints will be taken seriously. It is therefore important that Ofsted ensures it identiﬁes and addresses any barriers to reach vulnerable groups. 34. Ofsted managers need support and training to enable them to advance equality in line with the Equality Act 2010 and the forthcoming Public Duty. Senior management champions for diversity and management buy- in is crucial to ensure an inclusive culture within the organisation. This is necessary to send a clear message that equality and diversity are taken seriously and to effectively inspect for compliance in other institutions. As a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions, Ofsted has made an important step towards making its workplace one where everyone feels they can be themselves and in improving outcomes for children and young people.

The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process 35. Stonewall training of Ofsted inspectors has highlighted that there is a need amongst inspectors for raising awareness of LGB issues and training to enable all inspectors to identify homophobic bullying when it occurs. 36. To ensure the consistency and quality of the inspection process require well trained inspectors who know how to recognise homophobic bullying and know how to identify whether the needs of all young people and other service users, including those who are LGB, are met. It is also important for all inspectors to receive clear guidance alongside the training and that they are aware of existing best practice.

The Weight Given to Different Factors within the Inspection Process 37. Homophobic attitudes, bullying and diversity on grounds of sexual orientation have not been given much attention by schools in the past. It is therefore important to recognise that in order to ensure the Government’s pledge to help schools tackle homophobic bullying is implemented effectively, additional attention to the issue and resources might be required.

The Role of Ofsted in Providing an Accountability Mechanism for Schools Operating with Greater Autonomy 38. Consistent and high quality inspections are important to hold schools and other services accountable and to ensure they comply with their duties under the Equality Act 2010. This is especially important with regard to schools and academies operating with greater autonomy outside of local authority control and scrutiny. 39. Parents, school staff, children, young people and other service users should have access to a simple mechanism for reporting grievances and for making complaints to Ofsted about non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010, shortcomings in the quality of teaching and leadership or discriminatory behaviour. Clear cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w138 Education Committee: Evidence

procedures are needed to follow up and investigate these complaints as well as guidelines on how to rectify shortcomings and failure, for example in compliance with the Equality Duty. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The Food for Life Partnership Summary 1. School food is part of pupils’ education and should be inspected as such. A nutritious lunch contributes to understanding of healthy lifestyles and brings immediate benefits to students’ behaviour, concentration and ability and inclination to learn. Existing Ofsted inspection criteria, however, are currently inadequate to inspect the quality of food on offer in schools, to assess whether or not meals meet the mandatory nutritional standards or register the extent to which schools promote their lunch service. 2. Inspection has a critical role to play in encouraging and maintaining high standards of school food, food education and culture. Inspection criteria for school food should be extended to cover all the potential benefits good food can bring to pupils’ education, health, social skills and behaviour. Inspection should assess the degree to which schools promote their meal service and therefore achieve financial viability through adequate take-up, including review of the quality of food culture in the school, which has a demonstrable effect on take- up figures. The inspection of school food should remain within the responsibility of the main schools inspectorate, whichever body that is to be, as the influence of good food and food culture extends to every realm of school life. 3. In the case of new Academies or for other schools operating with greater autonomy, the role of Ofsted should be to provide an accountability mechanism from schools to parents and funders. Academies should demonstrate how the decisions they have made have used food to promote pupils’ health, wellbeing and attainment.

Recommendations for Government 4. We recommend that Ofsted, or any inspectorate for schools, should: — Assess a “whole school approach” to good food and food culture. — Inspect school’s adherence to the nutrient-based standards. — Assess head teachers’ commitment to promoting the lunch service. — Inspect breakfast clubs and other food access initiatives for disadvantaged pupils. — Inspect food growing in schools. — Include pupils in inspection of school food and educational opportunities. — Involve parents and families in inspection of school food. — Ensure that school food remains the responsibility of the main schools inspectorate. 5. The Food for Life Partnership is a network of schools and communities across England committed to transforming food culture. At FFLP schools great food is matched by food education, cooking lessons, on-site food growing and improvements to the dining area. We currently work with over 2,500 schools in England and more than 200,000 meals are served to Food for Life standards daily. 6. The Food for Life Partnership is funded by the Big Lottery Fund and led by the Soil Association, bringing together the practical expertise of the Focus on Food Campaign, Garden Organic and the Health Education Trust. — The Soil Association is the UK's leading environmental charity promoting sustainable, organic farming and championing human health. — The Focus on Food Campaign is the leading food education support programme for teaching cooking in the UK’s primary and secondary schools. — Garden Organic is the UK’s leading organic growing charity dedicated to researching and promoting organic gardening, farming and food — The Health Education Trust is the national charity dedicated to initiating and supporting work with children and young adults to encourage the growth of healthy lifestyles. 7. FFLP takes a “whole school” approach to decision-making, involving catering staff, teachers, families and the pupils themselves; promoting personal responsibility and ownership at every stage. Head teachers report that this approach brings improvements in attendance, behaviour, attentiveness in class and attainment, as well as increasing take-up of school lunch (see Appendix B for FFLP case studies).

Scope of our submission 8. Our expertise is food in schools. Our response will therefore be conﬁned to commentary on the importance of adequate inspection of school food and food culture, and the role of inspection in promoting the “whole cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w139

school” approach essential to achieve the high take-up levels that will in turn secure a ﬁnancially viable lunch service. We are not in a position to comment on Ofsted’s role in other institutions. We do not propose that inspection is all that is required to improve or maintain the quality of food in schools but that it is necessary contribution to improvement of school food and food culture. We believe that FFLP has the evidence and experience to help address the following of the Education Committee’s concerns: — What the purposes of inspection should be (in schools). — The impact of the inspection process on school improvement. — The weight given to different factors within the inspection process. — The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy. 9. In this submission to the Education Committee we will be drawing on our experience working in over 2,500 schools in England, and an extensive body of evidence linking nutrition with health and behaviour and good school food with improved nutrition for the pupils to eat it, particularly poorer pupils. We are also supported in our assertions by the three professional advisory bodies that support the Partnership; our Caterers’ Circle, Cooks’ Network and the Educators’ Panel of head teachers. 10. For more information about the Food for Life Partnership see: www.foodforlife.org.uk

Submission of Evidence: Ofsted and Inspection of Food in Schools 11. Food in schools is essential to maintain pupil’s health and help them achieve to the best of their ability, helping the government meet the aims of its school policy: high standards of attainment and reducing the gap between rich and poor pupils. Inspection criteria can drive change and communicate the government’s priorities to schools, pupils and families. We need a coherent approach to school food across all government initiatives for schools. A consistent school food policy, including inspection as part of this strategy from Government, will bring the most beneﬁts from each intervention and make the most of government investment.

The importance of food in schools 12. All of the evidence from research into the benefits of good school meals indicates improvements in pupil health, behaviour,105 motivation and ability to learn and achieve.106 A healthy lunch and breakfast has been shown to improve attendance, behaviour and concentration.107 A pleasant dining experience at lunchtime improves social skills, and the efficiency brought by having enough seats or short queuing times encourages pupils to stay and eat the food. In turn, a secure customer base will promote the economic viability of the catering service and allow a virtuous circle of continued improvement to school meals, pupil health, behaviour and achievement. Inspection of school food can help prioritise its role in schools and achieve these benefits for pupils. 13. Until very recently, however, central government made no funding available for school lunches except to cover the approximate cost of pupils’ free school meals (FSMs). Compulsory competitive tendering by local authorities in the absence of mandatory food standards created a situation in which school meal providers were under pressure to deliver least-cost solutions at the expense of nutrition and quality. Kitchen and dining room infrastructure suffered chronic underinvestment and in many situations the facilities disappeared altogether. The FSMs themselves were commonly reduced to a “brown bag” of sandwiches of indeterminate nutritional quality. School food needs continued support from government, including adequate inspection, to maintain the educational opportunities and demonstrable benefits to health. 14. A number of published studies have shown that hungry children behave worse in school, registering reductions in fighting and absence and increased attention when meals are provided.108 More specifically, two studies have found that school children who received supplements of essential fatty acids showed less 105 For instance, the following four studies: J. M. Murphy et al, “The Relationship of School Breakfast to Psychosocial and Academic Functioning: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Observations in an Inner-City School Sample,” Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152, no 9 (1998). J. M. Murphy et al., “Relationship between Hunger and Psychosocial Functioning in Low-Income American Children,” J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 37, no 2 (1998). R. E. Kleinman et al, “Hunger in Children in the United States: Potential Behavioral and Emotional Correlates”, Pediatrics 101, no. 1 (1998). 106 “Changing Diets, Changing Minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour” Courtney Van der Weyer, Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. (2005) Page 31 107 School Food Trust, “School Food and Behaviour in Primaries” and “in Secondaries” (2009) www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/ research/research-projects. 108 For instance, the following three studies: J. M. Murphy et al, "The Relationship of School Breakfast to Psychosocial and Academic Functioning: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal “Observations in an Inner-City School Sample”, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152, no. 9 (1998). J. M. Murphy et al, “Relationship between Hunger and Psychosocial Functioning in Low-Income American Children”, J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 37, no. 2 (1998). R. E. Kleinman et al, “Hunger in Children in the United States: Potential Behavioral and Emotional Correlates”, Pediatrics 101, no. 1 (1998). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w140 Education Committee: Evidence

aggression, compared with controls, when they were placed under stress.109 The School Food Trust has shown that pupils in primary and secondary schools behave signiﬁcantly better in class and remain more “on task” in the afternoon after a nutritious lunch110.

15. A majority of the studies investigated during the 2006 Food Standards Agency systematic review of nutrition and pupils’ performance noted good evidence that eating breakfast is beneﬁcial to the performance and behaviour of school children.111 Schools that have breakfast clubs also report improved behaviour in the classroom. Two studies found that individuals who ate something for breakfast every day reported better mental well being than those who had erratic morning routines.112 Immediate beneﬁts include improved memory113 and a sense of calm under challenging conditions.

16. Few children have a perfectly healthy diet in the UK, but poor nutrition affects disadvantaged pupils most of all. While many young children may be consuming too much energy and becoming overweight or obese (the UK already has the highest rate of childhood obesity114 in Europe), many children, whatever their energy intake, are also malnourished; i.e. they are not meeting daily vitamin and mineral requirements.115 As Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families Tim Loughton acknowledged in the Commons, “free school meals have an important role to play in addressing poverty and inequality... [they] often represent the only nutritious meal in some children’s day”.116

17. Although Free School Meals are available in all schools for the worst-off children, without a supportive school food culture many children are stigmatised for taking FSMs. Additionally, without adequate take-up from the rest of the school a hot school meal service is not viable. Schools are not obliged by law to provide anything more than FSMs and a cold sandwich can pass for a meal. Decline in the lunch service means children eligible for FSMs may miss out on a freshly-cooked hot lunch and all the nutritional beneﬁts that entails.

18. We know that in FFLP schools the quality of the school meal and dining experience encourage more children from all backgrounds to eat a healthy lunch, in turn supporting a ﬁnancially viable lunch service. At FFLP schools, great food is matched by food education, cooking lessons, on-site food growing, visits to local farms and improvements to the dining area. From enrolment with the programme to receiving their Bronze, Silver or Gold award (less than two years), meal take-up in participating schools increases on average by 23%, with our best practice schools reporting take-up of over 80%. The national average increase in take-up this year was 2.1% in primaries and 0.8% in secondaries.117 This “whole school approach”, integrating food into all aspects of school life, is the most effective way to achieve high levels of take-up and its beneﬁts for the good mental and physical health of the school population, particularly disadvantaged pupils (please see Appendix B for examples of FFLP schools where this whole school approach has dramatically increased take-up).

19. School Food Trust research118 has shown that school meals are now consistently more nutritious than packed lunches. This is of particular concern for children from lower-income families, whose packed lunches contained more fat, salt and sugar and less fruit and vegetables than children from wealthier backgrounds. The Trust’s recent report into children’s eating habits found that children are more likely to try new foods during school lunch or cookery classes, in the supportive environment of their peers, than they are at home.119 This suggests that school food is instrumental in encouraging children to eat a balanced diet, with implications for their mental wellbeing and behaviour. Parents know that they cannot maintain their children’s good food habits if they are not supported by schools. Standards at school must also set a model for the food outside of the school day.

20. Food culture and education in schools (including cookery classes, food growing, farm visits, nutrition action groups and health education) provide excellent educational opportunities for pupils with a diverse range of learning requirements. The kitchen and garden are effective teaching environments for literacy and numeracy, science, history and geography. Including students in decision-making, such as in the FFLP’s model of School Nutrition Action Groups, helps develops life skills and promotes participation in the school and wider community. 109 “Changing Diets, Changing Minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour” Courtney Van der Weyer, Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. (2005) Page 31 110 School Food Trust, “School Food and Behaviour in Primaries” and “in Secondaries” (2009) www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/ research/research-projects 111 Summerbell C et al A systematic review of the effect of nutrition, diet and dietary change on learning, education and performance of children of relevance to UK schools. 2006 (FSA Project Code: N05070). 112 A. P. Smith, “Breakfast and Mental Health”, Int J Food Sci Nutr 49, no 5 (1998). A. P. Smith, “Breakfast Cereal Consumption and Subjective Reports of Health”, Int J Food Sci Nutr 50, no 6 (1999). 113 D. Benton, O. Slater, and R. T. Donohoe, “The Inﬂuence of Breakfast and a Snack on Psychological Functioning”, Physiol Behav 74, no. 4–5 (2001). 114 www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asp 115 National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2010). www.food.gov.uk/science/dietarysurveys/ndnsdocuments/ 116 Hansard, Free School Meals debate, 30 June 2010, 10.46 am. www.parliament.uk 117 School Food Trust, Fifth Annual Survey of School Meal Take-up in England, July 2010 www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/ﬁfth-annual-survey-of-take-up-of-school-meals-in-england 118 www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/school-lunch-versus-packed-lunch-evidence-of-compliance-with- school-food-standards 119 “School food helps fussy eaters try new food”, Survey, 2 September 2010. www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/news-events/news/school-meals-help-fussy-children-try-new-foods cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w141

21. Evidence linking horticulture with improved wellbeing has found a diverse range of beneficial outcomes that are likely to influence pupils’ time at school, including lower rates of crime, lower incidence of aggression, greater ability to cope with poverty, better life functioning, greater life satisfaction, and reduced attention deficit symptoms.120 Allowing children to grow food can also encourage increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, potentially improving both physical health and pupils’ ability and inclination to learn.121 Gardening is also exercise, even for the least athletically inclined, and physical activity has been shown to increase the brain’s production of “happy” hormones like serotonin and endorphins, which improve feelings of wellbeing and motivation. Our experience at Food for Life Partnership schools is that children develop self-esteem in learning to grow their own food and learn to take responsibility for their own actions. This is particularly true in the case of disadvantaged pupils, who frequently display the most problematic behaviour. 22. Meanwhile, at FFLP schools a calm and sociable dining environment teaches children social skills, and prepares them to be receptive in afternoon classes. FFLP schools in disadvantaged areas also report an increase in attendance, as well as improved behaviour. 23. Finally, involving parents and families in school lunch and food education has considerable scope to extend the benefits of healthy food and to help parents to understand and address their children’s health, behaviour and achievement at school. At Food for Life Partnership schools we encourage the participation of the whole school community, including families and local residents, spreading the benefits of healthy food and food skills. 24. Families need the knowledge and skills to make informed food choices and by promoting a whole school approach to food and health through appropriate inspection Government can ensure that they have them. The majority of adults in the UK have passed through UK schools: there is no other as advantageous an occasion to influence the population’s food skills, knowledge, health and behaviour and to secure the immediate benefits to pupils’ attainment.

The purpose of inspection of food in schools 25. School lunch is part of the educational experience of children in school and should be a priority for inspection. Inspectors should investigate the quality of food on offer in schools as well as the school’s good food culture and the extent to which the head teacher promotes the lunch service (for instance, through investment in dining facilities or use of food in the curriculum), which would both encourage students to eat the food on offer and secure a range of the benefits above. 26. Education secretary Michael Gove wishes to simplify the inspection process and to focus inspection on four key areas; quality of teaching, leadership, pupil’s behaviour and safety, and their achievements.122 More detailed inspection of the school food and the degree to which it is integrated into a school’s approach would encourage a high quality of teaching, secure significant benefits to pupils’ behaviour and readiness to learn, and contribute to pupils’ good health. Encouraging healthy food habits and securing take-up of school meals will protect the health of young people during their time at school and beyond it. Without this, no school can claim to have successfully achieved a safe environment in which pupils can learn to the best of their ability. 27. Inspection criteria indicate how important government considers particular functions of schools. In the experience of FFLP, schools are motivated by Ofsted inspections to develop or maintain particular aspects of their service. In showing head teachers how good food can help improve their curriculum, plus encourage good behaviour, motivation and concentration, FFLP has seen increased interest in participation in our programme. When schools receive good results from Ofsted they are further encouraged to proceed with the aspects of the programme that have helped attain the good results. In this way inspection can be used to promote aims of government school policy. 28. Government school policy want to raise the standards of attainment for all and to “close the gap” between rich and poor pupils. Good food at school improves concentration, motivation and behaviour, meaning children get a fair chance to learn and achieve and to contribute fully to an adult working life. Good food education, including cooking and growing, gives children the skills and knowledge they need to take responsibility for their own diet and the health of their future families. 29. It is a legal requirement that schools are inspected and that inspections cover a broad selection of outcomes, not simply a narrow interpretation of educational attainment. Section 5 of the Education Act 2005 states that inspectors must report on (amongst other things): how far the education meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school; the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of the pupils at the school; the contribution made by the school to the well-being123 of those pupils; and 120 ISHS Acta Horticulturae 639: XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality. “Horticulture, wellbeing and mental health: from intuitions to evidence” Kuo, F E., 2006 121 Evidence from reviews by, for example, Garden Organic and the Food Policy Unit of Defra. 122 “School inspections slimmed down”, Angela Harrision, BBC News, 23 September 2010. 123 The term “well-being” is set out in the Children’s Act 2004 as relating to: pupils’ physical and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by pupils to society; the [pupils’] social and economic well-being (the five Every Child Matters outcomes). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w142 Education Committee: Evidence

the contribution made by the school to community cohesion.124

While a simpliﬁcation of the inspection process is to be welcomed, pupils have the legal right to a school culture that promotes their health, wellbeing, safety and gives them the opportunity to learn to the best of their ability. Inspection criteria and processes must recognise their role in achieving this.

30. A thriving school food culture contributes to social and cultural development of students, diverse educational needs, pupil and staff safety and wellbeing and cohesion of the whole school and wider community. At FFLP schools, involving students in food growing or cookery provides excellent learning environments for diverse student needs; teaching children where their food comes from contributes to cultural and social development; horticulture can improve wellbeing and motivation; and the whole school and wider community get involved in decision-making. FFLP schools routinely gain “outstanding” assessments in areas where the Partnership have helped to integrate food skills and education into the curriculum and policy of the school. (Please see Appendix B for examples of Ofsted reports from FFLP schools).

31. Existing inspection criteria are inadequate to ensure schools meet the mandatory nutrient-based standards now in place, meaning that the government has routine means of checking whether schools meet the standards or not. For all children, the nutrient-based standards that are now in place in primary and secondary schools (if schools adhere to them) provide pupils with a healthy balanced meal, going a signiﬁcant way to providing a healthy diet overall, and for some pupils providing the majority of a child’s daily nutrition. The only current inspection criteria to mention food, however, simply says that, “Inspectors may take account of different groups of pupils’: uptake of school meals and selection of healthy food, and understanding of the beneﬁts of physical exercise… and a healthy diet and how they have adopted these into their lifestyles”.

32. There are no criteria which monitor the actual quality of food on offer, assess whether or not it meets the nutrient-based standards, or monitor take-up levels or the school’s efforts to promote its dining service. The School Food Trust and school caterers acknowledge that adequate take-up levels are essential to allow the catering service to become economically viable and secure the beneﬁts of healthy lunch for all students. Ofsted inspections should include investigation into the quality of food on offer, particularly to assess if it adheres to the nutrient based standards, if inspection is to assist the government meet its objectives for healthy, attainment and equality at school.

33. Inspecting the quality of school food and food culture will assist schools to use this effective model to secure beneﬁts to education, health and achievement. Good food and food culture can help schools demonstrate several of Ofsted’s existing criteria, including the following: Pupils’ achievement and the extent to which they enjoy their learning. Pupils’ behaviour. The extent to which pupils adopt healthy lifestyles. The extent to which pupils contribute to the school and wider community. The extent to which pupils develop workplace and other skills that will contribute to their future economic well-being. The extent of pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. The effectiveness of the school’s engagement with parents. The effectiveness of partnerships in promoting learning and well-being. The effectiveness with which the school promotes community cohesion. The effectiveness with which the school deploys resources to achieve value for money.

34. By including explicit reference to food and food culture in the inspection criteria Ofsted can encourage schools to prioritise the most effective way to gain success in achieving the above aims. Inspection of school food culture, and the quality of food and dining experience, will ensure that the school is effectively promoting its lunch service and increasing take-up. With high take-up the lunch service can become economically independent of government subsidy, ensuring efﬁcient use of government resources. 124 “The framework for school inspection”, Ofsted, September 2009. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w143

Recommendations for action by the Government

35. We recommend that Ofsted, or any inspectorate for schools, should: — Assess a “whole school approach” to good food and food culture. Ofsted should develop inspection criteria that would prioritise the Food for Life Partnership’s demonstrably successful “whole school” model of good food, food culture and education. This not only addresses the quality of food available in schools, but also encourages take-up of the school lunch; ensuring the good food is eaten, the lunch service remains economically viable and schools’ dependence on government money is minimised. Criteria would cover the use of food as a teaching aid, the suitability of the dining facilities, cookery and food growing facilities and the subjects’ presence on the curriculum, and student participation in decision-making about school menus and food- based educational activities. — Inspect school’s adherence to the nutrient-based standards. Since the introduction of the food and nutrient-based standards in schools in 2008 and 2009, there have been demonstrable improvements to the nutritional quality of food in schools. Local authorities (or the schools themselves if they have opted-out of LA catering) are responsible for ensuring that the food they serves meet the standards but there are no means of inspecting whether or not this happens and Ofsted has no criteria in which to assess adherence. Ofsted inspections should include assessment of compliance to the standards. Although it is clearly beyond the scope of inspectors to analyse menus on the day of a school visit, the full assessment should include a report of the school’s nutrient analysis of their menus (by the local authority or school itself, as appropriate). The inspectors could take a copy of the menu available on the day and compare it to the school’s nutrient analysis and communications to parents. — Assess head teachers’ commitment to promoting the lunch service. The most effective way to increase take-up of school meals, and therefore gain the beneﬁts of good food for more pupils and make the lunch service more independent of government support, is to improve the whole school food culture. This includes putting cookery and food growing on the curriculum, improving the dining facilities and involving pupils in decision-making. Head teachers have greater control over these activities that the caterer and caterers frequently complain that their heads do not do enough to help promote the service. One manager from a large national caterer said he would “fully endorse…any incentive for a head teacher to improve the meal service”. Ofsted inspectors should request a business plan from the head teacher that details how they plan to continue improvement to their lunch service and assess the activities in the school around food and education. Please see Appendix B for examples of schools that have successfully used the whole school model to increase take-up.

— Inspect breakfast clubs and other food access initiatives for disadvantaged pupils. Take-up of breakfast clubs, Free School Meals and other healthy food incentives should be assessed as indications of a school’s commitment to disadvantaged children. The school food culture, promoting participation in healthy food initiatives and encouraging take-up of FSMs, should be assessed to ensure the school is promoting the safety and attainment of every child.

— Inspect food growing in schools: Food growing should be a part of the curriculum and the school’s self-assessment forms should include a question relating to the school’s use of outdoor space for growing food. Inspectors should take that into account when assessing the head teacher’s commitment to improving the school’s food culture and lunch service.

— Include pupils in inspection of school food and educational opportunities. Pupils’ opinion of their school, including the food and educational opportunities, are perhaps the most signiﬁcant. Additionally, involving students in assessment and decision-making can improve their motivation, commitment and wellbeing. Ofsted could provide assessment forms for a selection of students to comment on, among other things, their school lunch and how effectively it is promoted.

— Involve parents and families in inspection of school food. Parents and families should be invited to comment during a school’s assessment. One of the main purposes of a school inspection is to communicate the school’s achievements to families. Indeed, one of the aims of Ofsted is to determine “the effectiveness of the school’s engagement with parents.” A parent assessment form could gather their perspective on the lunch service, including how well the school communicates their commitment to school food and educational opportunities, plus value for money.

— Ensure that school food remains the responsibility of the main schools inspectorate. The inﬂuence of good food and food culture extends to every realm of school life. The most effective way to secure a ﬁnancially viable lunch service is to promote the “whole school approach” to food and education. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w144 Education Committee: Evidence

APPENDIX A QUOTES FROM OFSTED REPORTS, SHOWING HOW SCHOOLS USE FFLP TO IMPROVE THE CURRICULUM, PUPILS’ ENGAGEMENT, THEIR HEALTH AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONTO THE COMMUNITY School Date of Report Summary

Twerton Infant June 2009 “Lessons are planned so that the learning makes links to pupils' School, Bath everyday life and this captivates their interest. For example, pupils plant their own vegetables, look after them and watch how they grow. They then pick them when ready and use them to provide a delicious meal to enjoy, thus promoting lifelong learning. The school is justifiably very proud of its silver award for Food for Life Partnership Scheme. Pupils have an exceptional understanding of how to keep healthy and know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. “ King’s Meadow May 2009 “The teaching of these subjects is made more meaningful to pupils Primary, Southport, through an excellent range of topics and themes, which are enriched Berkshire extremely well by an impressive array of extra-curricular activities such as gardening [and] cookery…” Coppice Farm January 2009 “Staff have planned a curriculum which meets pupils’ needs well Primary, Nottingham because they find it engaging, relevant and fun. A good example of this is the innovative work on the “Food for Life Partnership” project, which has been extended to involve parents in providing healthy meals at home.” “We feel that without FFLP we would not have achieved those top grades just yet”. (Teacher Jo Sharpe from Coppice Farm). St. Peter’s CoE June 2009 The school’s FFLP Flagship status is mentioned with ideas such as Middle School, Old the “cross curricular food and farming initiative” which have, Windsor, Berkshire “captured the pupils’ imaginations and extended their learning as well as strengthening their links with the local business community”. Cowes Primary March 2009 “[The pupils] have a very good understanding of how to stay healthy. School, Isle of Wight One of the main reasons for this is because they eat in the school restaurant “La Cocina”, which provides freshly cooked food, locally sourced, including produce from the school allotment in the summer. This means that a much larger proportion of pupils now eat a hot meal at lunchtime.” St. Peter’s High November “The school plays a leading role in promoting healthy lifestyles School, Burnham-on- 2009 through the Food for Life programme and a good food technology Crouch, Essex curriculum. Improvements in the quality of food on offer in the school canteen have been met with much enthusiasm, as shown by an increase in the take up of school meals.” Lydgate Infant July 2009 “Through the ‘Food For Life’ initiative pupils are taught about food School, Sheffield sources, food production, food preparation and cooking skills… .Pupils have an excellent understanding of how to live healthily and show an excellent understanding of how the way they live can affect the world they inhabit.” “The “Food for Life” initiative and links with outside agencies such as “Water Aid” , are increasingly helping teachers to link subjects so that pupils can see the relevance of learning and also promotes community cohesion at a global level.”

APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF FFLP SCHOOLS WHERE A WHOLE SCHOOL APPROACH HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED MEAL TAKE-UP

Crondall Primary School:A“WholeSchool”Approach toTake-upSuccess At Crondall Primary School in Hampshire food has become as important a part of the school day as science or reading, and it shows: their school meal take-up has gone up from 52.6% take-up in 2008 (when the school enrolled with FFLP) to 72.8% in 2010, an increase of 20.2%. Head teacher Megan Robinson feels that it is because the school values food so highly and uses it to teach the school day that the children themselves want to eat the school lunch. The children themselves are involved in making decisions about what is served at lunch and grown in the school garden through the School Nutrition Action Group, which also has representatives from the local village cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w145

and the children’s parents. Parents and members of the local community regularly join the school for lunch, when the children take visitors on a tour of the school kitchen and allotment. Mrs Robinson makes sure the school is always well represented in the parish magazine and the cook contributes a recipe to the school’s newsletter. All this means that parents and families are reassured about the school’s commitment to their children’s food. At lunchtime, every pupil has a role to play. The oldest pupils help serve and Year Five are charged with helping Reception to choose food and ﬁnish their plate. The school has raised funding to invest in a permanent cookery room (which they will rent to the local community for food education classes) and children grow some produce for the lunch menu on the school allotment, making food a central part of the school day and reaping beneﬁts in increased take-up.

Eden Foodservice, Croydon: Financial Benefits of “WholeSchool” Approach Caterer Eden Foodservice employed a new member of staff to make sure their cooks maintained the Food for Life quality standard, and to promote the FFLP model to other schools served by Eden in the London borough of Croydon. They did so because they saw the immediate benefit of the FFLP programme to food quality and the financial return of the “FFLP effect” on take-up. Operations Manager Michael Calder explains that taking part in FFLP “gives the children a purpose to have a school meal”. The “whole school” approach to health promotion and food education engages the children and gives them a reason to choose a healthy school lunch over other available options. Eden Foodservice saw the immediate effects that FFLP had on the quality of food they served, and in turn the take-up of school meals, over as little as 2½ school terms. This justified the expense of promotion for one of their existing cooks, Suzanne Martin at Atwood Primary, whom they employed to support other Croydon schools to enrol with the FFLP. Mr Calder is adamant that they have achieved their success with a straightforward approach to raising food quality and good service and an honest promotion of the food provenance to parents. Children will not be fooled by low quality food. Parent engagement has been key; over 32,000 flyers are sent home every time the menu changes. A cashless system in the dining hall to reduce queuing times and shield Free School Meals pupils from stigma have also contributed to an improved experience for all.

Charter’s School, Ascot, Berkshire “The School Food Trust warns that all the time, money and effort that has been invested since 2005 in transforming school food is at risk of being wasted unless school canteens work efﬁciently and are appealing environments for children. Charters has seen the number of pupils regularly eating a hot dinner at lunchtime increase from less than half in 2006 to somewhere between 60% and 70% now. But, Vanessa Stroud, business manager at the 1,600 pupil school stresses, the food at Charters is only part of the explanation for the big jump in the number of children opting to eat in the canteen. Changes in the dining area itself and in the organisation of the school day have been just as important, she says. In 2004, the school introduced staggered lunchbreaks to help its 250-capacity canteen cope with the number of pupils who even then wanted a hot lunch. Thus there are now three half-hour slots for lunch, starting at 11am. That's earlier than in most schools, but a necessity if Charters is to satisfy demand. Charters has also spent about £50,000 over the last ﬁve years, improving both its canteen and its kitchen. Replacing old tables with new folding tables and realigning the seating layout means the canteen now has the capacity to feed 300 pupils during each lunch sitting, while new ovens have speeded up food preparation”.125

Memorandum submitted by the National Association of Head Teachers 1. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Education Select Committee Inquiry into the work of Ofsted. 2. NAHT currently represents over 28,000 school leaders in early years; primary; special and secondary schools; independent schools; sixth form and FE colleges; outdoor education centres; pupil referral units, social services establishments and other educational settings, making us uniquely placed to represent the views of the sector.

The Purposes of Inspection 3. NAHT supports an effective school inspection system. The alternative is a data driven, mechanistic approach to measuring school performance, which would damage the accountability, effectiveness and morale of the system. We need a system which rewards those who choose to work in the most disadvantaged communities and which asks how results are achieved. 125 “Healthy School Meals Win Over Secondary Pupils”, Denis Campbell, Guardian newspaper, 10 August 2010. www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/10/healthy-school-meals-attract-pupils cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w146 Education Committee: Evidence

4. The purpose of a school inspection system should be (in order of priority): (a) To help schools improve their performance; and (b) To provide an independent evaluation of school performance on behalf of various stakeholders. (c) It should meet these aims by providing an external, expert judgement of the school—focused on progress and rooted in the school’s context. 5. We believe that there are certain principles that an effective school inspection system should meet. — It should be founded on school self evaluation, to enable a dialogue between inspector and institution. The school should have ﬂexibility to choose the method of self evaluation rather than being constrained by an excessively bureaucratic framework. — It should be simple, with the minimum of regulation and red tape. — It should be proportionate to school performance in both frequency and scope, but it should be available to all schools. — Inspection could be triggered by a risk assessment (and perhaps a randomised sampling) rather than a ﬁxed cycle of time. — It should be focused on teaching and learning, and the curriculum, making use of the evaluations of teaching quality generated by the school’s own programme of externally moderated lesson observation. — This would eliminate the need for separate subject inspections, which would be generated from the aggregate of ordinary inspections; thus saving money — It would be helpful to distinguish between “core” activities, subject to the full investigation, and “enabling” activities, which would be evaluated on a lighter touch check of compliance — It should make a virtue of expert judgement, which takes full account of the progress the school is making given its particular circumstances. It would treat data as a starting point for enquiry and there would be no limiting judgements. — It should be developmental. The end result of an inspection should be a jointly created plan of improvement—drawing on both the school’s perspective and the inspectors’ experience of what works in other similar contexts. An inspection should be something a school wants and values. — This would also imply that outstanding schools should be inspected, in order to generate good practice. — The tone and conduct of inspectors would also be critical. It may be helpful to look at the current inspection categories and alter them so that satisfactory genuinely means satisfactory—a scale using an odd number of levels would assist this.

The Impact of the Inspection Process on School Improvement 6. Above we have highlighted how we believe inspection should impact on school improvement. Sadly, we are currently some way from this position. A recent NAHT poll on the subject of Ofsted attracted almost 1,500 responses from serving school leaders. Whilst most agreed that supporting school improvement should be a key purpose of school inspection, only 16% believed that inspection accelerated school improvement. The remaining respondents believed that Ofsted inspections have little or no impact on school improvement with the largest group (38%) claiming inspection was a distraction from school improvement and 12% stating that Ofsted actually hinder school improvement. 7. School leaders are clear about what the problems are and why Ofsted inspections are failing to deliver what schools need to drive performance: 8. Ofsted’s well documented focus on data (particularly but not exclusively attainment data) frequently results in schools coming out of inspection with no new information that they can use to drive the school forward. It is easy to identify patterns of performance on paper—it is significantly more difficult to tackle those problems in the classroom. Ofsted inspectors are not seen as able (or willing) to provide advice or strategies to overcome difficulties and improve performance. 9. The tick box culture of inspections continues to reign supreme. In response schools spend time “jumping through hoops” which serve only the inspectorate—not the pupils or staff. 10. Ofsted inspections are seen by many in the profession as punitive in their approach, not supportive. The failure of many inspection teams to recognise the contextual factors affecting schools and the perception that satisfactory is not good enough, can and does have a devastating effect on staff and pupil moral. It can take schools months if not years to recover from a poor inspection experience, setting back the school improvement agenda immeasurably. This is particularly the case when good schools have fallen foul of limiting grades. 11. Limiting grades and ever changing requirements have also been a major setback in the school improvement agenda. Schools who have worked hard to drive up standards and transform the learning environment have been prevented from achieving the grades they deserve and the community expects because of changes in the inspection framework, so schools that would have moved from satisfactory to good under cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w147

one framework, stay as satisfactory or are given notice to improve under another. This disguises real school improvement and demoralises students, staff and whole communities.

The Performance of Ofsted in Carrying Out its Work, including the Consistency and Quality of InspectionTeams. 12. Only 3 (0.2%) respondents to the NAHT poll described Ofsted’s performance as outstanding, and 17% described it as good. For the majority (58%), their performance was rated as satisfactory but worryingly, almost a quarter (24%) described Ofsted’s performance as Inadequate. 13. The most frequently expressed concerns focus on issues of consistency. 61% of respondents to the NAHT poll rated Ofsted as inadequate for consistency of inspection teams. School leaders believe that the quality of inspection is down to chance—which inspectors turn up on the day. 14. It is important to stress that there are many highly-skilled inspectors working in the system and school leaders value and welcome their assessments. However, questions remain about the selection, training and support for others within the system. 15. Many are concerned that inspectors have insufficient knowledge and experience of the sector they are inspecting. Secondary specialists are inspecting primary and early years settings and the small teams and single inspectors evaluating Special Schools often do not have inspectors with senior or up to date leadership experience—essential with the complex management decisions undertaken in that context. Others are rightly concerned that some inspectors have been “out” of education for long periods of time and have not kept abreast of key initiatives or school based activities and so are unable to effectively assess their appropriateness. 16. The extent to which inspectors are prepared to use their discretion when assessing a school’s circumstances is another .ssue as indeed is the complaints procedure. 17. Feedback from our members suggests that there is considerable variation in the way that inspectors interpret the inspection framework and evaluation schedule. Good inspectors, widely respected by the profession, draw on a wealth of knowledge and experience and use a combination of professional judgement and common sense when reaching conclusions about appropriate grades. Ofsted itself clearly advocates this position. However, too many inspectors either believe (or use as an excuse) that they have no choice or discretion in the grades they assign, slavishly following data-based formula irrespective of the reality of the school’s performance. Sadly, these same inspectors are often perilously behind with their reading and often oblivious to the most recent Ofsted guidance on interpretation and application of the framework. 18. The problem of inspectors failing to keep up with guidance is undoubtedly exacerbated by the volume and frequency of additions and amendments made to such guidance. Whilst we value the fact that Ofsted have been responsive to the concerns of the profession and tried to steer inspectors in the right direction, the need for so many clarifications undermines confidence and supports our claim that inspectors do not always proceed correctly. 19. It is worth re-stating, that NAHT believes there are many excellent inspectors working in the field and would add that we receive very few complaints about HMI. The overwhelming majority of the “problem” inspectors described above are “Additional Inspectors”. This in itself points to on-going selection, training and monitoring issues—within Ofsted’s partner inspection service providers (CfBT Education Trust, Serco Education and Children’s Services, Tribal Group and Prospects Services.

20. There is undoubtedly a signiﬁcant gap between the inspection process envisioned and described by Ofsted and the inspection process delivered by some teams.

21. Despite improvements in recent months, many school leaders believe that using the complaints procedure is futile as Ofsted are rarely prepared to change their initial position, or engage with additional evidence. Ofsted’s reluctance to publish data on the number, nature and outcomes of complaints they receive does not inspire conﬁdence amongst the profession. Inspectors are seen as unaccountable, with some individuals notorious within localities for their unprofessional attitudes, complaints are made, but in the absence of “evidence” (which is almost impossible to gather) few are upheld.

The Weight Given to Different Factors within the Inspection Process 22. School leaders have signiﬁcant concerns about the weighting of the inspection process, and in particular the use of limiting grades. 65% of respondents to the NAHT poll believed that the current weightings were inappropriate. Part of this concern is that the Ofsted weighting appears to be politically rather than educationally motivated. Many of the targets and baselines used to assess schools are arbitrary and unhelpful within the context of some schools—particularly small schools where percentage based models are notoriously unreliable.

23. The over-use of data and the “domino effect” of some judgements with the framework leave many schools believing that an outstanding grade is impossible to achieve, whatever they do. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w148 Education Committee: Evidence

Whether Inspection of AllOrganisations,Settings andServices to Support Children’s Learning and Welfare is Best Conducted by a Single Inspectorate 24. School leaders are divided on whether a single inspectorate is the best way to approach the inspection of all organisations settings and services supporting children’s learning and welfare. 25. “Children’s services” are by necessity complex and inter-related and there are undoubtedly times when a holistic approach is beneficial to all parties. However, this is not necessarily best achieved by a one-size-fits- all model. Many are concerned that the expansion of Ofsted has resulted in an increase in power at the expense of a dilution in service quality and scrutiny. Education has undoubtedly suffered from having the attentions of our Chief Inspector pulled in so many different areas and failures or shortcomings in one area of Ofsted’s remit inevitably impacts on the faith and confidence that all services have in the inspectorate as whole. 26. It is clear from the responses of our members, that what matters most is not the external structure of the inspectorate, but the operational structures within it. Although there is much inter-agency work across the sector, it is essential that any and all inspectors have appropriate, relevant experience in and knowledge of the sector they are inspecting. Frameworks must have sufficient flexibility to deal with regional and local variation of practise and structure and the inspectorate much have sufficient resources to operate effectively.

The Role of Ofsted in Providing anAccountabilityMechanism forSchoolsOperating with Greater Autonomy 27. We believe that all maintained schools should be subject to the same accountability mechanism. As discussed above, the role of inspection should be about school improvement and sharing good practice, areas of intense interest for all schools whatever level of autonomy they have or aspire to. A separate system of inspection for Academies or Free Schools would suggest a two-tier state education system, with one group of schools seen as being less accountable than others. This, considering the range of inspection outcomes achieved by existing Academies, would be unacceptable to NAHT and the wider profession. 28. The more challenging question of course is whether Ofsted should be that inspectorate or whether a new body is required for the inspection of all maintained schools. NAHT would be keen to offer oral evidence to the Committee to further explore this and other questions. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Recruitment and Employment Confederation 1. Introduction 1.1 This submission is in response to the House of Commons Education Committee call for evidence on the role and performance of Ofsted. 1.2 The response outlines the role of the REC and REC Childcare, the interaction between our members, nannies and Ofsted. This response comments solely on issues relating to the supply of nannies by REC Childcare agencies.

2. About the REC and REC Childcare 2.1 The REC represents around 8,000 recruitment company branches, estimated to constitute half of all recruitment agency branches by number but a higher proportion by turnover. 2.2 Over 85% of the industry is made up of small businesses. In 2008–09 the recruitment industry generated a turnover in excess of £22 billion and placed 1 million people into temporary jobs every week in every sector of the labour market. 2.3 REC Childcare is one of 20 specialist sector groups, covering the entire recruitment industry run by the REC. REC Childcare represents agencies who deal primarily with the placement of nannies, nursery staff and maternity nurses. The group comprises over 140 recruitment agencies across the UK. 2.4 The REC supports members with their responsibilities through the provision of free legal services, model contracts and advice and guidance on setting up an agency. Correct and ethical recruitment is the prime concern of the REC and all our members’ sign up to a Code of Professional Practice and are subject to random inspections.

3. Response from REC Childcare—Summary 3.1 REC Childcare is calling for a complete overhaul of the way nannies are registered on the Ofsted Voluntary Register, which ensures their application and documentation are properly scrutinised and checked as part of the registration process. Alternatively we would like to see the introduction of a professional compulsory registration process for all nannies, with the responsibilities for registering on such a register, being removed from Ofsted and given to a separate body tasked with registration and revalidation of all nannies. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w149

3.2 Ofsted run a Voluntary Childcare Register, the primary aim of which is to facilitate the voluntary registration of nannies in order to allow working parents to utilise childcare vouchers to offset the salary paid to a nanny. However, the name Ofsted has meant that parents view the register as a verification that a nanny is suitable to work with children. 3.3 Parents believe that the registration process involves the checking of appropriate documentation, which as you will see in our response is not the case. There is great faith in this system. A recent survey carried out by the REC and social media network Mumsnet found that two thirds (67%) of the 1,000 mums surveyed see Ofsted registration as a thorough stamp of approval. 3.4 There are numerous flaws in the system; unqualified nannies are slipping through the net by not being required to provide proof at the application stage that they have all of the relevant documentation required to enable them to be registered. A system of self-declaration (the applicant simply ticking boxes to say they meet the criteria) appears to be acceptable to Ofsted and they rely on a small number of physical inspections each year to verify these declarations. 3.5 Nannies have also been found to be producing false documents to support their application to be on Ofsted’s Voluntary Childcare Register. In one particular case, a REC Childcare agency discovered that a nanny who had successfully registered on the Voluntary Childcare Register had a false visa and was illegally working in the UK, yet was able to produce a letter from Ofsted confirming her registration on the Register. 3.6 In a high profile case which received much media attention, a member of the REC’s Childcare group applied and successfully received certification to be on the Ofsted Voluntary Childcare Register, despite having none of the requirements to enable her to be on the Register. 3.7 Once a nanny is registered, they receive a letter from Ofsted confirming their registration. This has no expiry date on it, which means that even if that nanny is “removed” from the register, they would still have a letter to show to unsuspecting parents. 3.8 The REC is seriously concerned about the implications of all of this, but most importantly fears for the welfare of children if rogue nannies are able to obtain work by being on the Voluntary Childcare Register. To further compound the situation, anecdotal evidence shows that only 10% of nannies on the Voluntary Childcare Register are inspected, highlighting just one flaw in the system. 3.9 There have also been cases reported of Ofsted auditors inspecting nannies with clearly no knowledge of what it is a nanny does (as opposed to a childminder or nursery), and no real idea of what it is they are supposed to be inspecting often calling into question the professionalism of nannies placed by our members. 3.10 Further evidence shows that parents are increasingly hesitant to agree to an Ofsted inspection of their nanny as they feel this somehow calls into question their own parenting skills. 3.11 The role of the Post Office in this registration system is wholly inappropriate. There is much anecdotal evidence from nannies who have registered to show that the Post Office is not properly trained in the process and does not know what documents it needs to view, or how it should be inspecting those documents. 3.12 The function of the Post Office appears to be simply in order to process the CRB application, and therefore they just tick boxes to say documents have been produced without fully checking them and with no understanding at all of the actual voluntary registration process. Parents place a lot of trust in Ofsted, and therefore in the Ofsted Voluntary Register. Due to the flaws in the system, this trust is misplaced. 3.13 REC Childcare believes that if the registration and revalidation of nannies process were to be tightened up, the costs of administering such a process could be covered by the reduced need for external auditors used by Ofsted who at the moment are not correctly briefed on how to conduct inspections on the competencies of a nanny.

4. What the Purposes of Inspection should be and the Performance of Ofsted in Carrying Out its Work 4.1 Our response relates to inspections or audits of nannies on the Ofsted Voluntary Childcare Register. REC Childcare believes that inspections are most effective when a correct brief is provided. The purpose of an inspection or audit of a nanny is clearly to ensure that the nanny is suitable and capable of carrying out the tasks required. However, as stated on the Ofsted website: Registration on the Childcare Register relies on the applicant making a declaration to conﬁrm that they will meet the requirements of registration. Ofsted carries out a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check on the applicant but does not normally carry out any other checks. We do not usually interview applicants for the Childcare Register to assess their suitability, as we do for the Early Years Register. 4.2 This reliance on the applicant and lack of checks as part of registration on the Ofsted Voluntary Register (with the word Voluntary often dropped not just by Ofsted but by nannies wanting to boost the credibility of the Register) feeds through to a fundamentally poor inspection regime, with the purpose of inspections often missed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w150 Education Committee: Evidence

4.3 Nannies have often approached REC Childcare members to complain that they are being inspected as though they were childminders, with often distressing questions about the suitability of living conditions being asked. 4.4 This latter point often raises concern amongst parents, who often feel they themselves are being audited by Ofsted for the suitability of the environment in which they are raising children and as a result auditors are sometimes refused entry to homes by parents. 4.5 The performance of Ofsted inspections is hindered by the performance of Ofsted and the lack of an adequate system put in place to register nannies. This lack has given rise to problems as raised above in 3.4 to 3.7

5. The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process 5.1 Ofsted inspection teams are often freelance auditors contracted by Ofsted to carry out audits. As a result there are inherent inconsistencies from audit to audit (for example the primary case above of inspecting nannies as childminders). 5.2 It would be easy to question the suitability and professionalism of the external auditors used, however we believe the lack of consistency is a result of systemic failure both inherent (due to the nature of using outside contractors) and in the information given to auditors by Ofsted.

6. The Weight Given to Different Factors within the Inspection Process 6.1 As discussed previously the weight given to different factors in the inspection process is imbalanced and we would welcome the ability to see what factors Ofsted use in their inspections of nannies. 6.2 Outside the Ofsted inspection process, there should be a shift in focus away from inspections and towards effective registration and revalidation of nannies with dated certiﬁcates once revalidated, to ensure the conﬁdence parents place in the system is valid.

7. Whether Inspection of All Organisations, Settings and Services to Support Children’s Learning and Welfare is Best Conducted by a Single Inspectorate 7.1 The Ofsted Voluntary Register does not work. The focus within Ofsted is on education and anecdotal evidence suggests only 10% of nannies on the Ofsted Voluntary Register are inspected. This is a low number which does not justify the conﬁdence placed in the Register. 7.2 Given all the factors above REC Childcare are calling for either the overhaul of the way that nannies are registered on the Ofsted Voluntary Register of the for the introduction of a compulsory registration of all nannies, where their application and documentation are properly scrutinised and checked. 7.3 We believe these responsibilities should be removed from Ofsted and given to a separate body tasked with registration and revalidation of all nannies. This move could also encompass other children’s services which currently fall under the remit of Ofsted, to allow a more focussed approach on the protection of children to be conducted. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the General Social Care Council 1. Areas of the inquiry addressed in this submission: — “What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit); — The weight given to different factors within the inspection process”.

Introduction: About the General Social Care Council 2. The General Social Care Council (GSCC) is the social care workforce regulator for England. It is a Non Departmental Public Body which was established under the Care Standards Act 2000.126 3. The GSSC exists to protect people who use services. It does this through its three main ‘statutory functions’, the speciﬁc roles which the Government has set out in legislation that it must do: — it maintains the register of social care workers (the Social Care Register); — it issues and distributes codes of practice for social care workers and their employers, and holds registrants to account for their conduct; and — it regulates social work education and training. 126 The Care Standards Act is available online at: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000014_en_1 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w151

4. Through the exercise of these functions the GSCC works both to protect people who use services and also to improve the quality of social care services for the beneﬁt of people who use these services. Related to its statutory functions, the GSCC also has two statutory duties. These are to promote: — high standards of conduct and practice among social care workers; and — high standards in their training. 5. The Social Care Register was opened to social workers in 2003 and on the 1 April 2005 “social worker” became a “protected title”. This meant that from this date it became an offence in England for an individual to call themselves a social worker without being registered with the GSCC. Currently more than 100,000 social workers and social work students are on the Social Care Register.

The Code of Practice for Employers of Social Care Workers 6. Under the Care Standards Act the GSCC has a statutory obligation to produce a code of practice for social care workers and a code of practice for employers of social care workers. The GSCC developed such codes in conjunction with its sister Care Councils across the United Kingdom (the Care Council of Wales, the Northern Ireland Social Care Council, and the Scottish Social Services Council) through an extensive process of consultation across the social care sector. 7. The resulting codes, the Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers and the Codes of Practice for Employers of Social Care Workers (Employers Code) are entwined.127 To give one example, whilst the former sets out the responsibility that social care workers have to undertake training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date, the latter identifies the responsibility that employers of social care workers have for providing opportunities for, and support to, social care workers through such training. 8. The Employers Code sets out responsibilities for employers of social care workers in five broad areas: — recruitment: employers have a responsibility to ensure that social care workers are suitable to enter the workforce. This includes ensuring that social care workers have the appropriate level of knowledge and skills to carry out the role they have been recruited for. In addition, employers should check that a social care worker is registered with the appropriate care council. Employer references and the relevant CRB checks must also be sought before granting employment; — supervision and support: employers have a responsibility to ensure that employees receive the appropriate supervision and support to undertake their duties. Employers should also ensure that systems are in place for staff to raise concerns about inadequate resources or operational difficulties which might impede the delivery of safe care; — training and development: employers should provide induction, training and development opportunities to help social care workers undertake their jobs effectively. Further, they should support staff to meet the registration requirements with the relevant care council (as applicable). Employers should contribute to the provision of social care and social work education and training, including effective workplace assessment and practice learning; — safety and security: employers have a responsibility to put into place and implement written policies and procedures to deal with dangerous, discriminatory or exploitative behaviour and practice. Employers have a responsibility to support workers who do experience trauma or violence in their work; and — co-operation with relevant care council: employers have a responsibility to promote the codes of practice to social care workers, service users and careers. Employers also have a duty to inform the care council about any misconduct by a registrant that may call into question their registration. Further, Employers have a responsibility to co-operate with care council investigations and hearings. 9. Adherence to the Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers is compulsory for social care workers registered with the GSCC, currently just over 100,000 social workers and student social workers. However, the Employers Code only has the status of an advisory document—there is no mechanism to ensure that employers adhere to its requirements. 10. The GSCC has had concerns for a considerable period of time that a significant proportion of employers of social care workers have not been fulfilling their responsibilities in areas covered by the Employers Code. Areas of particular concern include the provision of training and development opportunities for social care workers, employers proactively referring information about issues of misconduct to the GSCC and cooperating with the GSCC’s investigations and hearings. 11. The last couple of years have witnessed considerable high profile scrutiny of social workers, their employers and the institutional architecture surrounding the profession. This scrutiny has included Lord Laming's Progress Report on Child Protection, the Children’s Schools and Families Committee Investigation into the Training of Children and Families Social Workers and the work of the Social Work Task Force. The evidence presented to these bodies and the findings produced in their reports have served to echo the GSCC’s 127 The Codes of Practice are available from the GSCC website at: www.gscc.org.uk/codes/Get+copies+of+our+codes/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w152 Education Committee: Evidence

concerns. For instance with respect to training the Children, Schools and Families Committee received oral evidence from a representative from British Association of Social Workers that: 12. “People who put themselves forward for the post-qualifying child care award which was widely taken up, often found that they didn’t get the workload relief to which they felt entitled. They therefore had to do the course and the rest of their day job. Such pressures and people’s experiences of further qualiﬁcations and continuing professional development were not always easy […] many felt that was an unreasonable expectation from employers, when it was actually a work requirement.”128 13. With respect to supervision Lord Laming commented in his progress report, The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report 2009, that: 14. “Regular, high-quality, organised supervision is critical, as are routine opportunities for peer-learning and discussion. Currently, not enough time is dedicated to this and individuals are carrying too much personal responsibility, with no outlet for the sometimes severe emotional and psychological stresses that staff involved in child protection often face.”129 15. whilst, also with respect to supervision, the ﬁnal report of the Social Work Taskforce reported that: 16. “surveys continue to show that too many social workers do not get access to this type of supervision. As a result, they feel that their original skills are stagnating and they are not acquiring new ones. They become reluctant to think critically or creatively about the judgments they need to make and fall back on a more mechanistic approach to their work. They can begin to question their own effectiveness and experience ‘burn out’ through a combination of heavy workloads and low support”.130

Transfer of GSCC Functions to the Health Professions Council and theRole Social Work Reform Board 17. Two important developments need to be noted here, these being the future transfer of the functions of the GSCC to the HPC and the ongoing work of the Social Work Reform Board. 18. Following a Department of Health review of its arms-length bodies, the Government announced in July its intention for the regulation of the social work profession to be transferred from the GSCC to the HPC, subject to legislative change.131 While a deﬁnitive timetable has yet to be agreed, it is anticipated that this transfer will take place in April 2012 at the earliest. 19. The Social Work Reform Board, set up in January 2010, currently leads a national social work reform programme. The aim is to develop a social work system that provides high quality services by social workers who are well supported, and in whom the public feels conﬁdent. The Board leads the implementation of the recommendations of the Social Work Task Force (December 2009). 20. Amongst the recommendations of the Social Work Task Force were the establishment of clear standards for employers as to how social work should be resourced and managed and how social workers are supported to do their work. The drafting of such an employers standard is currently being taken forward by a workstream of the Social Work Reform Board. 21. These two developments may in future impact on the role of the GSCC’s Employers Code. However at present the Employers Code is a statutory code covering all employers of social care workers.

Ofsted’s Inspection of Providers of Social Care 22. Ofsted took over the responsibility for inspecting providers of children’s social care from the Commission for Social Care Inspection and for inspecting the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration from 1 April 2007. With respect to social care Ofsted, therefore, has responsibility for inspecting: — Children's homes; — Residential family centres; — Independent fostering agencies; — Voluntary adoption agencies; — Adoption support agencies; — Boarding schools; 128 This oral evidence is available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/527/527ii.pdf 129 The full report can be accessed at: http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/HC-330.pdf 130 The ﬁnal report of the Social Work Task Force is available at: http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DCSF- 01114–2009 131 Liberating the NHS: Report of the arm’s-length bodies review, http://www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_118053.pdf (accessed 20/08/10) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w153

— Residential colleges; — Residential special schools; — Local authority adoption agencies; — Local authority fostering agencies; — Local authorities; and — CAFCASS. 23. CAFCASS itself is the largest single employer of social workers in England and, collectively, Ofsted is the service inspector for a significant proportion of the employers of social workers and other social care workers in England. 24. Ofsted undertakes the inspections of these various services through a number of inspection frameworks, including a general framework which applies to all inspections, a specific framework for the inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements and a specific framework for the inspection of safeguarding and looked after children services. 132, 133 25. These frameworks cover a number of the areas which are also covered in the GSCC’s Employers Code. For instance the inspection framework for contact, referral and assessment arrangements states that inspections will usually include an evaluation of: — “the quality of management oversight and decision-making, including: — senior management audit of how well workers manage risk of harm through effective referral and assessment; — case allocation and caseload management; — the quality of direct supervision and support.” 26. However, there are number of areas of the GSCC’s Employers Code which are not covered by Ofsted’s inspection frameworks. These gaps include the requirement in the Employers Code for employers to inform the GSCC regarding concerns that they have with respect to the suitability of social care workers: 27. “Informing the GSCC about any misconduct by registered social care workers that might call into question their registration and inform the worker involved that a report has been made to the GSCC”134 28. and the requirement in the Employers Code for employers to co-operate with GSCC hearings and investigations: 29. “Co-operating with GSCC investigations and hearings and responding appropriately to the findings and decisions of the GSCC”.135 30. Ensuring public protection requires a close relationship between employers, workforce and service regulators. The Commission for Social Care Inspection, the body who undertook the inspection of children’s social care prior to their transfer to Ofsted, included a specific reference to the GSCC’s Employers Code in their inspection framework. 31. As a statutory code covering all employers of social care workers, it is our view that Ofsted should include a specific requirement for inspections to check that employer of social care workers are adhering to the requirements of the GSCC’s Employers Code as part of the relevant inspection process. 32. Ensuring employers adherence to the GSCC’s Employers Code would strengthen Ofsted’s inspection framework and serve to enhance public protection.

Summary of Key Messages — The GSCC is under a statutory obligation to produce a code of practice for employers of social care workers; — the GSCC’s Employers Code sets out responsibilities for employers of social care workers in ﬁve broad areas: recruitment; supervision and support; training and development; safety and security and co-operation with the relevant workforce regulator; — no mechanism exists to ensure employers adhere to the GSCC’s Employers Code; — Ofsted is the service inspector for a considerable proportion of employers of social care workers. Ofsted’s inspection framework’s for these employers do not require the employers to adhere to the GSCC’s Employers Code; 132 The inspection framework for contact, referral and assessment arrangements is available at: www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Unannounced-inspections-of-contact- referral-and-assessment-to-1-September-2010/(language)/eng-GB 133 The inspection framework for safeguarding and looked after children services can be found at: www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Inspections-of-safeguarding-and-looked- after-children-services 134 GSCC Employers Code: code 5.5. 135 GSCC Employers Code: code 5.6. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w154 Education Committee: Evidence

— ensuring public protection requires a close working relationship between employers, service and workforce regulators; — including an obligation for employers to adhere to the GSCC’s Employers Code in the relevant Ofsted inspection frameworks would strengthen these inspection frameworks and serve to enhance public protection. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers 1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee on Ofsted. It has consistently given the highest priority to evaluating the effect of the inspection arrangements on schools and to promoting a positive alternative to the current inspection arrangements. Indeed, it has led the way in innovative thinking about school evaluation, in particular through its work with Professor John Macbeth on school self-evaluation. 2. Attached to the NUT’s submission are two documents which support and develop the comments made within it. Annex 1 outlines the National Union of Teachers’ proposals to reform school evaluation. Annex 2 summarises the most recent bi-annual survey of its members on Ofsted inspections. The NUT is currently surveying members who experienced a school inspection in 2009–10 and will send to the Committee the report on its ﬁndings, which will be available in January 2011.

1. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 3. As the NUT is primarily concerned with the education system, it will conﬁne its comments on this question to school inspection. 4. The purpose of a school inspection system should be to enable schools to “know themselves” honestly in order to develop the best possible environment for teaching and learning. The current system creates precisely the opposite set of conditions. Openness and conﬁdence about owning the processes of school evaluation are replaced by the paramount need to “put on a performance” for the inspectors. 5. Accountability for the effective functioning of the education service is a legitimate requirement of both local communities and government. Inspection is seen as a key means of securing that accountability for schools. It is geared, however, to high stakes consequences for those schools which are perceived to be failing rather than providing a genuinely accurate, fair and useful assessment of the work of an individual school.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 6. The NUT does not share the view that inspection is a powerful lever for improvement. Its views arise supporting members and also from the ﬁndings of independent research evidence. The NUT agrees with the National Foundation for Educational Research report136 conclusion that “the factors that contributed most to school improvement were staff commitment and effort, self evaluation and school ethos”. 7. Ofsted does not have a developmental and supportive role to aid schools’ improvement. Its purpose is to identify a school’s strengths and weaknesses only. Inspection has failed to bring about sustained improvement because of its separation from developmental support and from schools’ own improvement work, a view held by 59% of NUT survey respondents in its recent survey. 8. Currently, more time and resources are spent on identifying problems than on helping schools to improve. Schools are subject to Ofsted Section 5 and subject survey inspections, School Improvement Partner (SIP) visits and local authority performance monitoring. Much of the £236.3 million137 invested annually in Ofsted may be wasted money which could be better spent by schools themselves on improvement strategies. 9. There is a lack of balance between internal and external school evaluation. This failure to achieve balance has led teachers to view evaluation as a regular event external to the life of the school. Teachers view Ofsted inspections as a process to be planned for and lived through but essentially destabilising to the normal rhythms of life and certainly not to be embraced as integral to the continuing and effective existence of the school as a community. 10. Where the outcomes of the inspection are positive there is a sense that the school breathes a collective sigh of relief and continues, much as before. The drivers for improvement continue, as before the inspection, to be those linked more closely to school development planning and review than to inspection. 11. As Ted Wragg commented “Ofsted has been a ‘how not to’ model—mechanical, formulaic, repressive, inimical to innovation”138. Ofsted has depleted teachers’ conﬁdence in judging the quality of their practice. Teachers perceive that they must always check against the prescriptive requirements of the next inspection. 136 McCrone, T., Rudd, P. et al, Evaluation of the Impact of Section 5 Inspections, NFER, 2007 137 Hansard, House of Commons Written Questions and Answers, 4 March 2009 138 Wragg, T.(Ed), Letters to the Prime Minister, New Vision Group, 2005 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w155

This places a very real constraint on teachers’ ability to innovate in teaching and learning and has led to a perception amongst many in the profession that “high quality” actually means “what would be praised by 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% 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w156 Education Committee: Evidence

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: “he 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: “eadership 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w157

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 practice139 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. 139 MacBeath J. and Oduro G., Inspection and Self—Evaluation: A New Relationship, University of Cambridge/National Union of Teachers, 2005 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w158 Education Committee: Evidence

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; and — 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w159

— 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w160 Education Committee: Evidence

— 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w161

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 ongoing 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w162 Education Committee: Evidence

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.

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Colleges (AoC) — The Association of Colleges (AoC) represents and promotes the interests of Further — Education and Sixth Form Colleges and their students. Colleges provide a rich mix of academic and vocational education. As independent, autonomous institutions established under the Further Education Act 1992, they have the freedom to innovate and respond ﬂexibly to the needs of individuals, business and communities. — The following key facts illustrate Colleges” contribution to education and training in England: — Every year Colleges educate and train three million people. — 831,000 of these students are aged 16 to 18 which compares to 423,000 in schools. — 74,000 14 to 15 year olds are enrolled at a College. — One-third of A-level students study at a College. — 44% of those achieving a level 3 qualiﬁcation by age 19 do so at a College. — 69% of those receiving an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) study in a College. — Colleges are centres of excellence and quality. The average A-level or equivalent point score for Sixth Form Colleges is 800.1, compared with 761.6 for school sixth forms. 96% of Colleges inspected in 2008/09 were judged satisfactory or better by Ofsted for the quality of their provision.

1. Methodology To inform the AoC’s response a membership survey was conducted. We have incorporated feedback from the survey into the text.

2. The Future of Quality Assurance in FE and Sixth Form Colleges—Ensuring Standards, Achieving Value for Money AoC would argue that the time is right to overhaul the inspection regime and system. Over the last eight years, the quality of education and training and achievement rates in Colleges has signiﬁcantly improved. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w163

Colleges have matured and the sector now boasts less than 4% inadequacy. This is not reﬂected in other parts of the FE sector. Self-assessment is embedded and is at the heart of Colleges” annual review of their performance. A key component of the self-assessment process is the observation of teaching and learning. In fact, Ofsted rely on Colleges” own improvement plan, and teaching and learning improvement strategies, to form their judgements. Over the past four years Ofsted has reduced its inspection intervention in proportion to the rise in achievement and standards. In fact it is now proposed that Colleges graded “OutstandingHare” no longer inspected and that, based on a risk approach, Colleges graded “Satisfactory” and above will be subjected to a “light-touch” inspection regime. So the move to the sector taking ownership of the quality improvement agenda has already begun. Unfortunately the burden and bureaucracy of inspection has not decreased, and AoC would suggest a better use of public funds would be in supporting a sector-led peer review model. AoC would therefore advocate a system which draws on the experience of Higher Education. A rigorous programme of peer review, with trained reviewers working within an agreed framework validated through a quality improvement/inspection agency, would not only reduce the cost per intervention but would also build capability within the sector. Colleges would work with Ofsted to design and agree a toolkit which would not only include the framework and criteria for peer review but also clearly set out a set of indicators against which performance would be measured. Colleges would like to work with Ofsted to design this toolkit around which peer validation would be consistent and rigorous. Ofsted could then sample the peer validations to ensure that the highest standards are maintained. The advantages of this are: — Reduction in the cost of inspection. — Development of the sector to ensure national standards are met. — Peers are recruited and trained to acceptable standards by Ofsted. — The enhancement of performance is encouraged through a community of professionals who take their experiences of peer validation back to their own institutions. — It allows Ofsted to target its interventions where performance is declining or is failing. — The model can be applied more directly to the context of Colleges rather than the “one size ﬁts all” approach in current practice. — This system is similar to the peer review model used in Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review (IQER) used by the Quality Assurance Agency to assure standards of HE delivery in FE Colleges. — Ofsted could provide a service to Colleges who would pay for this, similar to external audit. We would want to see the continuation of Ofsted’s role in thematic enquiries. However these should be better informed and driven by the sector through the National Improvement Partnership Board. (NIPB)140

3. Areas of Specific Interest to the Select Committee What the purposes of inspection should be 1. Ofsted’s role is to ensure standards and to provide assurance to students, employers and tax-payers, that the institutions in which they are investing their future or resources can deliver to an appropriate standard. However commissioners also measure performance and have developed intervention strategies. The Skills Funding Agency measure FE College performance annually through: — Framework for Excellence.141 — ILR142 audits. — An annual assessment against minimum levels of performance (MLPs). — Monitoring Notices to Improve which result from failing to meet financial or qualification MLPs. If Ofsted’s role is to regulate standards then it is a duplication of systems already in place and it would be advisable in value for money terms to resolve this. 2. AoC was pleased to see an increased focus on teaching and learning delivery in the Cycle 3 inspections (from September 2009). 3. In Summary — Ofsted’s purpose is unclear—if it assures standards then other performance management can be removed or vice versa. — The qualitative judgements Ofsted make are of importance to the sector and to inform choice. 140 NIPB brings together all the parties interested in improvement in the FE Sector. It is hosted by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service 141 Framework for Excellence is a set of performance indicators for Qualification Success Rates, learner and employer views, and learner destinations. All Colleges are part of this framework but schools are not. 142 The student records database for funding and performance measurement in the FE sector. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w164 Education Committee: Evidence

The impact of the inspection process on College improvement 4. From our survey results Colleges feel that inspection does motivate improvement but they vary in their estimation of how much. Ofsted inspection continues to inform self-improvement strategies. Management teams in Colleges report that inspection is a major tool in their drive towards improvement. However many Colleges say they are already able to inﬂuence this direction of travel without Ofsted. 5. Colleges value Self-Assessment, particularly as it is not a prescribed procedure and can serve their individual missions. It is currently a requirement of funding bodies and Ofsted expect a College’s own judgement to match their own. A positive step to reduce the amount of time spent on self-assessment would be to agree with Ofsted a slimmer version on which to base peer validation. 6. The Common Inspection Framework (Common Evaluation Framework) and the handbook for inspectors has been a useful engine for motivating improvements. Thematic reviews have given useful insights to focus development work. The “How Colleges Improve” (Sept 2008)143 and the inquiry into progress on implementation of Workforce Reforms (Initial Teacher Training—an overview of Ofsted Inspections 2004–8)144 were of particular interest. 7. Ofsted reports are brief and serve the needs of a lay audience but do not give the forensic detail that a College might want to aid its improvement agenda. 8. Ofsted has a light touch and now a no touch methodology for Colleges considered Good or Outstanding. In these cases it will have no role in improvement—that is for 63% of Colleges. Only 4% (seven Colleges) are graded Inadequate. 9. In summary: — Ofsted’s role in the future should be to support a peer validation process based on an agreed self assessment tool. — The element of professional qualitative judgements needs to be preserved. — In depth thematic reviews informed by the sector should be a continued role for Ofsted.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 10. The current inspection methodology is far too bureaucratic and burdensome. It currently involves Colleges addressing: 272 areas which contribute to judgements and grades for Overall Effectiveness, Capacity to Improve, Outcomes for Learners, Quality of Provision, Leadership and Management, Safeguarding and Equality and Diversity. 27 areas must be addressed in the Effectiveness of Teaching Training and Assessment. 22 for Safeguarding. 24 for Promoting Equality and Diversity. 24 areas are scrutinised under the heading of Value for Money. This unacceptable level of regulation results in considerable resource being diverted from the front line. The burden of inspection is self evident and not commensurate with its impact on improvement. 11. In the future students and employers may pay entirely for their provision with no support from the public purse. In that world there will be a purely customer oriented relationship which will depend on good quality for its survival. This would require a re-evaluation of the role of Ofsted in this market. 12. AoC is disappointed that the Ofsted website is so difﬁcult to access for Colleges seeking others who have just been inspected. We would encourage Ofsted to improve radically its search facilities. 13. Making a complaint about an Ofsted inspection is a complicated process. A College inspection report can be published before the complaint is resolved. We encourage Ofsted to revise their procedures substantially and ensure they include the ability to complain not only about the conduct of inspection but the evidence that supports judgements. Reports should be delayed until resolution of the complaint. 14. In summary: — Inspection is burdensome, bureaucratic and diverts resources from front line delivery. — The website and complaints procedure need attention. 143 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/How- colleges-improve 144 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/News-Archive/2009/February/Initial-teacher-training-for-further-education-an- overview-of-2004–2008-inspections cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w165

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 15. Inspection teams are professional and, with a 50% contribution from serving practitioners, have improved the currency of inspection. 16. AoC has concerns about the consistency of inspections. Many of our members have experienced a number of inspections during their careers, including from the now defunct FEFC, ALI as well as Ofsted, and can make valid comparisons. The current system of contracting with inspection providers145 has led to increased feedback from Colleges on the disparity between differing training and support for inspectors. We have already raised with Ofsted the problems perceived by our members of a conflict of interest between inspection contractors who are also consultants marketing their services to Colleges. 17. There are separate bench marks for General Further Education and Tertiary Colleges, Sixth Form Colleges and Independent Specialist Colleges. Ofsted measure Qualification Success Rates against these. However it is increasingly difficult to categorise by types of College. Some Sixth Form Colleges may have more in common in terms of their curriculum and student cohort with a General Further Education College. Institutional benchmarks serve little purpose. 18. The weight given to different types of provision in inspection has no relationship to the volumes of delivery in an institution. Ofsted focuses on 16–18 delivery and does not recognise the diversity of College provision. 19. In summary: — Full-time inspectors need to update their experience of College practice. — The training of inspectors varies. — Benchmarks by institutional type should be removed. — There is insufficient focus or expertise on post-19 Employer Responsive provision.

The weight given to different factors in the inspection process 20. Qualification Success Rates (QSR)146 have an overwhelming influence on inspection results and we believe they are a very important indicator of responsiveness to learners. But they have a direct influence over almost all of the 272 factors that culminate in a grade. The hypothesis that an inspection team arrive with will be based almost entirely on success rates. 21. This encourages institutions to recruit the students whose success is predictable. Challenging qualifications are discarded in favour of more achievable alternatives. 22. AoC would encourage a more reasonable approach to securing standards. We think there is a role for the FE sector in deciding with Ofsted what the threshold standards should be each year. Policing the complexity of individual qualifications is unnecessarily costly and not in the students” interest. 23. The issue of the retention element of success rates needs to be re-examined. School achievements are based on the success in gaining the qualification, not on how many students registered at the beginning of the programme. Colleges acknowledge the importance of focusing on retention and it has led to further innovation in teaching, learning, target setting, attendance monitoring and tutorial. However a student leaving for employment, illness or change of address has a negative and unfair impact on College success rates, therefore this requires re-evaluating. 24. We are also disappointed that measuring student success after the age of 16 in schools and Colleges is still not comparable. It leads to uninformed decisions being made by those unaware of the complexity of measuring success. 25. College inspections since September 2009 have focused on Safeguarding and Equality and Diversity. Grades for these areas have a limiting effect on the Overall Effectiveness grade. AoC believes that Safeguarding has assumed an importance in inspection way beyond the problem that needed a solution. In many Colleges adults make up the huge majority of students. Procedures that might apply to younger students and school settings have little relevance to most College students. Colleges do not have the resources to invest in electronic security procedures, controlled entrances and secure closed campuses. Colleges have been involved in costly CRB checking and training of staff when their students have already felt safe and clear about how they need to protect themselves. We would encourage Government to remove this from the Ofsted remit. 26. The judgements on Equality and Diversity have ensured a focus on the success of students on an individual basis. This has also led to innovative teaching delivery, a focus on tutorial and assessment for learning. 145 Ofsted contract with SERCO, Tribal and CfBT to deliver inspection services. 146 QSR are measured by counting the number of students who start a qualification programme and those who achieve. For example if 10 people start in year one and only 5 take the qualification at the end of 2 years the QSR will be 50%. In schools using the same numbers their achievement would be 100%. School attainment is only measured on who gains the qualification not on who has dropped out. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w166 Education Committee: Evidence

27. However we do not think that either Safeguarding or Equality and Diversity should be a limiting grade at inspection. Equality and Diversity should be integrated into overall College practice.

28. The inspection process does not give enough weight to value added measures147. Colleges lead the ﬁeld in engaging young people and adults not engaged in education or training (NEET). They have developed programmes for ex-offenders, those with mental health problems and people with learning disabilities and difﬁculties (LLDD). A much greater emphasis on the distance travelled by all students would be welcome.

29. Ofsted has given more weight to student satisfaction in the current cycle of inspections. Our members feel that national assessments of student satisfaction under Framework for Excellence should be used by inspectors.

30. Inspection does not take into account the resources available for Colleges to deliver its programmes. In a recent report by Ofsted on Special Education Needs it criticised Colleges for the weekly Guided Learning Hours delivered to students with learning difﬁculties and/or disabilities, and only acknowledged in the small print that this was all Colleges were resourced to do.

31. In summary: — The overwhelming dependence on QSR has led to perverse behaviour. Outcomes for learners should address a wider range including employment. — Safeguarding and Equality and Diversity should be removed as a limiting grade in inspection. — Greater emphasis should be placed on value added and student satisfaction.

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services is best conducted by a single inspectorate

32. The inspection process should offer value for money and reduced bureaucracy. Inspectors need to understand the context in which they are making professional judgements. A single inspectorate, if structured and managed appropriately, should be able to achieve the standards above.

33. In summary:

We do not advocate a return to different inspection services. The model we have explained at the beginning of this evidence would be a cost effective and robust system, and would provide the expertise for different contexts.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for Colleges operating with greater autonomy

34. AoC believes the time is right to review the role of performance management in the College sector. We have explained our ideas in Section One for a peer validation model supported by Ofsted.

35. We are moving to an era where Colleges will have much greater autonomy to manage their budgets in delivering their agreed business plans.

36. The oversupply of performance indicators and kite marks, each with their costs in people and time, needs reform. Framework for Excellence, Minimum Levels of Performance, Matrix, Investors in People, the Training Quality Standard, the quality assurance requirements of Awarding Bodies and now Sector Skills Councils, National Skills Academies and of course Ofsted all have their different methods and requirements. Possession of one does not inﬂuence another.

37. AoC is part of the National Improvement Partnership Board which is progressing the provision of publicly available information to aid student choice (mentioned above). Framework for Excellence will be part of this information. This project is supported by the current Government and the sector itself, and is a good example of a voluntary partnership to give stakeholders the information they need without compulsion. The motivation is the student/customer who has a choice to go elsewhere. Thus kite marks and performance indicators could be part of this landscape but paid for by the College where it deems it will improve its standards, and give its students and employers more information.

38. In summary: — Ofsted should be part of a co-regulating system. AoC’s model provides a blueprint for the future, borrows from international good practice, is used in higher education and would reduce costs whilst further increasing the quality of College provision. October 2010

147 Value added is a calculation based on where a student starts, the qualiﬁcations they enter a programme with, and where they ﬁnish. Positive value added scores are where a student achieves beyond what could be predicted. It is a good measure of College effectiveness. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w167

Memorandum submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders Introduction 1. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents 15,000 members of leadership teams of maintained and independent school and colleges throughout the UK. This places the association in a particularly good position to provide evidence for this inquiry.

Summary 2. ASCL believes that inspection should be part of an overall framework of intelligent accountability for schools and colleges, which should be not excessive but fit for purpose. 3. Inspection should move to being a process of validating schools’ and colleges’ self evaluation subject to external moderation. 4. Inspection alone cannot bring about improvement. Only when there are sensible links with subsequent action and external support will inspection contribute to improvement. 5. ASCL believes that self-evaluation, subject to external verification and the determination of improvement strategies, places the improvement of the institution in the hands of those people best placed to drive that improvement. 6. Therefore, though ASCL welcomes an end to the overly detailed and bureaucratic SEF in its current form, inspection must follow robust self-evaluation. A written record of the outcomes of self- evaluation has a value and a short working document could helpfully serve this purpose. 7. Schools and colleges should not be judged on a single data set. 8. ASCL has expressed concerns about the 2009 inspection framework but has welcomed the way in which inspectors are now engaging more meaningfully with school and college leadership teams. 9. Inspection should provide support as well as challenge. It should be an experience shared between the leadership team, other staff and the inspection team rather than an external invasion. 10. There must be consistency between successive inspections. This has not been the case as Ofsted adjusts its framework, sometimes radically, with each round of inspections. Such changes invariably include “raising the bar”. Thus it is impossible to make comparisons over time. It also creates a false impression of the quality of schools and colleges across the country declining, when in fact the reverse is the case. 11. ASCL argues that in the interests of consistency all inspection teams should be led by full-time HMI. 12. ASCL would like to see a consistency in terms of criteria and their application across the inspection of all institutions for post -16 learners. 13. ASCL would support a narrowing of the focus of inspection to core activities within a school or college, for example teaching and learning and leadership, which would provide evidence to judge if a good education is being given and if there is the capacity to improve further. 14. Compliance issues such as financial probity and safeguarding should be moved away from Ofsted to a biennial audit as part of the standard external auditing process of a school or college. 15. ASCL does not believe that there should be a single inspectorate for all organisations, settings and services that support children’s learning and welfare. 16. Inspection should be proportionate to the need for it. ASCL believes that those schools and colleges judged by Ofsted to be performing at the highest grade should have very light touch quality assurance.

What the purposes of inspection should be 17. One of the main purposes of inspection should be to validate a school’s or college’s self- evaluation; verifying strengths, highlighting good practice and identifying any areas for improvement. Inspection should be part of an overall framework of intelligent accountability for that is not excessive, as has been the case for some years, but fit for purpose. This will help bring about improvement—a core purposes of inspection. 18. While England may not yet have intelligent accountability for schools and colleges, the phrase has at least found a firm place in the education policy lexicon.148 19. The association defined intelligent accountability in 2003 as “A framework to ensure that schools and colleges work effectively and efficiently towards both the common good and the fullest development of their students. It uses a rich data set that gives full expression to the strengths and weaknesses of the school in fulfilling the potential of students. It combines internal school processes with levels of external monitoring appropriate to the state of the development of each individual school”.149 148 At the Times Educational Supplement general election debate in London on 15 March 2010 the phrase ‘intelligent accountability’ was used by all three major party spokesmen within the first half hour 149 Towards intelligent accountability for schools: a policy statement on school accountability, March 2003 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w168 Education Committee: Evidence

20. ASCL stands by this deﬁnition which is as important to apply in 2010 as it was in 2003.We would add that data should only be used for valid statistical inferences that can be drawn from it.150 21. From the outset ASCL has argued that it is as important to apply an intelligent accountability framework to colleges as to schools.

The Impact of theInspectionProcess on Improvement 22. The proportionality of inspections according to the performance of the school or college is a sensible use of Ofsted’s resources, although ASCL does not believe that an increased amount of inspection alone brings about improvement. Inspection alone cannot bring about improvement. Only when there are sensible links with subsequent action and external support will inspection contribute to improvement. 23. ASCL believes that self-evaluation, subject to external veriﬁcation, leaves the improvement of the institution in the hands of those people best placed to drive that improvement. 24. Schools and colleges have made great progress in developing rigorous and wide-ranging self-evaluation systems. These include structured lesson observation with feedback, regular reviews of strategic areas such as pastoral care, assessment and behaviour and annual surveys of student and parent views. 25. An end to the SEF in its present form, overly bureaucratic and detailed, is welcome. However, inspection should follow robust self-evaluation. A written record of the outcomes of the school’s self-evaluation has value and a short working document could helpfully serve this purpose. 26. Focusing on self-evaluation as the centre of the quality assurance system would help to move from a low trust to a higher trust accountability environment.

The Performance of Ofsted inCarryingout itsWork 27. Though ASCL expressed concerns about the 2009 inspection framework and its application, it has welcomed the way in which inspectors are now engaging more meaningfully with leadership teams. Inspections should provide support as well as challenge, and that cannot happen when inspectors are overbearing or narrowly focused on data. 28. This process should continue so that inspection is a collaborative process done with, rather than to, schools and colleges. Such a process could then be a shared professional experience based on fairness, trust and mutual respect between the leadership team, other staff and the inspection team; and less of an external invasion. 29. The increased attention that inspectors have paid to listening to students’ views is also welcome as it aligns with ASCL’s longstanding commitment to student voice.

The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process 30. Raising the bar” and additions to the framework have led to inconsistency in inspections carried out in different years/parts of year. There needs to be consistency between successive inspections otherwise it is impossible to make comparisons over time. 31. This inconsistency also creates a false impression of the quality of schools and colleges across the country declining, when on average the reverse is the case. 32. ASCL members report that the behaviour of and the standards applied by different Ofsted teams vary significantly. In the interests of consistency all inspection teams should be led by a full-time HMI. 33. The present system does not allow for consistency in judging all institutions where post-16 learners are studying. Different frameworks are used even though students may be the same age, studying for the same qualifications and are in the same geographical area. 34. Different sets of benchmarks and different methodologies are used to assess the progress of post-16 learners in different settings; for example, success rates are used in colleges and not in schools. 35. The current system encourages some inspectors to an over-reliance on data, which can lead to inconsistency in judgements especially when the quality of teaching and learning seen in the school or college does not match the data. 36. Under the current Ofsted arrangements the cut off point between good and satisfactory lies at around the 50th/60th percentile—close to the most densely populated part of the distribution and for most institutions well within the confidence intervals of data available to Ofsted. Such data cannot present evidence that can be validly used to make the distinction between good and satisfactory. Therefore, the current grading system is inappropriate in that it offers no valid statistical distinction between good and satisfactory, but can imply that the standard of education is less than satisfactory. 150 Intelligent accountability in practice, Policy Paper 68 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w169

37. In the interests of consistency and fairness ASCL, therefore, recommend that the current grading system should change and that there should be three grades: Above expected level of performance. Around expected level of performance. Below expected level of performance.

The Weight Given to Different Factors Within the Inspection Process 38. ASCL welcomes a move to a tighter focus on core activities within a school or college, such as teaching and learning, and leadership and management. This will provide evidence to judge if a good education is being given and if there is the capacity to improve further. The ﬁrst incorporates examination results but also looks deeply into the student’s experience. The second involves a judgement on the quality of leadership and management. 39. School self-evaluation and college self-review generate a rich data set and inspectors should take account of this data and should not restrict themselves to national measures. Many schools and colleges use other data to good effect, such as Fischer Family Trust, Durham University CEM Centre, ALIS and ALPs. ASCL cannot support a situation in which any single measure is taken as the sole true measure of performance. Intelligent use of statistics to improve performance cannot rely on one measure alone. 40. ASCL believes that intelligent accountability demands that the contribution of a school or college to student wellbeing should be assessed by a person, not a statistic. It should, therefore, be a part of self-evaluation and if external judgement is deemed necessary it can be validated by inspectors. 41. ASCL has already stated that compliance issues should be moved away from Ofsted to a biennial audit as part of the standard external auditing process of a school or college. That would free Ofsted to focus on the quality of education as described in paragraph 38. 42. These issues include ﬁnancial probity, and the obligations on governing bodies to comply with teachers pay and conditions regulations151 and safeguarding. 43. Safeguarding has become a danger zone for schools being inspected, as inspectors check that the safeguarding procedures and records observe the letter of the law. ASCL recommends compliance with safeguarding should be taken out of the inspection process. Instead we would prefer to see a clear statement of what is required, against which schools and colleges can check their own compliance, subject to a biennial external audit as described in paragraph 41. This is already the case with colleges.

Whether Inspection of all Organisations, Settings, and Services to Support Children’s Learning and Welfare is Best Conducted by a Single Inspectorate 44. ASCL does not believe that there should be a single inspectorate for this purpose. Dividing Ofsted into more specialized inspectorates would allow for inspectors who are experts in particular organisations, settings and services to carry out the inspections. 45. However, ASCL would like inspections to cover the whole of an organisation rather than separate inspections of sectors within the same school or college, for example of different aged students, or of boarding provision, so that there are not fragmented and multiple inspections which place an unnecessarily heavy burden on schools and colleges.

The Role of Ofsted in Providing an Accountability Mechanism for Schools Operating with Greater Autonomy 46. There is still a role for Ofsted in providing a mechanism for accountability, though inspection should be proportionate to the need for it. ASCL believes that schools and colleges judged by Ofsted to be performing at the highest grade should have less frequent inspections than those where there are concerns. Proportionality of inspections is a sensible use of Ofsted’s resources. 47. ASCL considers that the very best schools and colleges should be subject to a very light touch quality assurance as they already make good use of data, self-evaluation and feedback from parents and students to improve their performance without needing regular visits from inspectors. 48. Such an approach would be consistent with intelligent accountability and with the government’s commitment to proportionate regulation. 49. As a safeguard for students and parents, a school’s self -evaluation could be checked by Ofsted during the cycle of a pupil’s attendance at school, once every ﬁve years. This would also be an appropriate interval for a check on the SAR of the highest performing colleges. 151 As set out in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w170 Education Committee: Evidence

50. The shorter notice period of an inspection has been well received. However, inspections can be so short that there is an undue reliance on data with insufﬁcient time to check the student experience behind the data. Where an inspection does take place, ASCL believes that its length should be ﬁt for purpose. 51. Inspectors should avoid relying on single national data indicators and one year’s results. A single measure should not be seen as the sole verdict on performance. Schools self-evaluation and colleges self-review generate a rich data set and inspectors should take account of this (see paragraph 39). 52. The quality seen in schools and colleges, for example the inspectors’ observation of teaching and learning, can differ from the data. Therefore, judgements should not be made on data alone. 53. ASCL believes that CVA is a more legitimate measure of school and college performance than value added, and that value added is more legitimate than raw results. 54. However, CVA and LAT (Learner Achievement Tracker) have several shortcomings so that ASCL recommends that the government convenes a group to improve the measure on which schools and colleges are judged in context. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Voice: the Union for Education Professionals Executive Summary Ofsted’s current remit is too broad and should be restricted to assessing quality of provision, with a clear focus on the impact of teaching and learning on pupil achievement. Whilst it is important for Ofsted to report findings without fear or favour, it should be recognised that identifying good practice is equally as important as uncovering weak performance. The way in which inspection criteria are constantly ratcheted up over time distorts the true picture of a school’s pattern of improvement as it can easily result in a school receiving the same grade over two successive inspections when it has actually improved (or receiving a lower grade when there has been no appreciable change in the quality of provision). Schools have been further disadvantaged in the current cycle of inspection because of the introduction of ‘limiting judgements’, whereby schools which are deemed to be underperforming in certain specified areas are deemed to be limited in their effectiveness in all other areas, despite evidence to the contrary. Ofsted should have an advisory as well as a monitoring role in order to help to secure school improvement, especially in the case of poorer schools. The increasing reliance on part-time inspectors and agencies has weakened Ofsted’s reliability and credibility and diffused its expertise. This can be addressed by taking some of the resources that have been diverted to agencies back in-house so that a full complement of HMIs can be reconstituted. There are currently significant obstacles which prevent schools from mounting legitimate challenges to Ofsted, thus creating the impression that everything is running smoothly; if some of these obstacles could be removed, Ofsted would become more accountable. Inspection judgements often appear to be driven by data and pre-inspection documentation, rather than on direct observation of teaching and learning; this is a balance which needs to be redressed. The extension of Ofsted’s remit to include settings outside of the school system has over-stretched its resources and dissolved its influence, and has diverted attention from its historical focus on schools. The increasing trend towards schools operating with greater autonomy is a cause for concern as this often means that they are less accountable to the local communities which they serve. Ofsted could legitimately play a role in providing an accountability mechanism for such schools, or this role could be taken over by other bodies, such as Children’s Trust Boards.

Introduction Voice: the union for education professionals is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. Voice is an independent trade union, founded in 1970 by two Essex teachers, Colin Leicester and Ray Bryant, who gathered together a group of like-minded professional teachers who were prepared to commit themselves to the principle of not striking. The union now has 35,000 members across all sectors of education (early years, primary, secondary and tertiary), including teachers, lecturers, school and college leaders, teaching assistants and other school support staff, nannies, nursery nurses, childcare and early years professionals, centrally employed staff working for Local Authorities in education or children’s services, students on teacher training or childcare courses, and self-employed tutors and consultants. Formerly known as The Professional Association of Teachers, the union re-branded in February 2008 as Voice: the union for education professionals. Independent of the Trades Union Congress and not afﬁliated to any political party, Voice prefers to use the force of argument rather than the argument of force and, as such, relies on the power of effective negotiation rather than resorting to strikes or any other form of industrial action.

Comments 1. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) At present the purpose is too broad encompassing 7 areas: — quality of education; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w171

— how far it meets the needs of the range of pupils; — educational standards; — quality of leadership (including financial); — the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils; — the contribution made by the school to pupils’ well-being; and — and the contribution to “community” cohesion. We believe that some of the more peripheral areas be curtailed and that the focus should be on assessing quality of provision and a clear emphasis on the impact of teaching and learning on pupil achievements. Whilst inspectors should act as critical friends their avowed aim of encouraging services to improve often fuels the perception that they are only interested in finding fault, whereas identification and dissemination of good practice should be equally important.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement A major problem within the way Ofsted measures school improvement is that the criteria are subject to change over time so that for example a school which was previously judged as satisfactory may have made significant improvements but does not receive a higher grade because the bar has been raised. This is especially the case since September 2009 when the concept of limiting judgements was introduced so that a school which fails or is merely satisfactory in a particular area cannot be regarded good or outstanding in other areas in spite of concrete evidence to the contrary. As an inspection is only a snapshot it may not provide a representative picture of the school. In particular, areas in which the school has made significant improvement may escape the attention of inspectors during their 1 or 2 day visit. When Ofsted puts a school into special measures or under notice to improve this does not automatically lead to improvement and any improvement which ensues will be due to the efforts of the school staff often assisted by other agencies rather than any support or encouragement that Ofsted has given. It would be beneficial if Ofsted were to have a clear advisory role, alongside its monitoring remit, in order to assist school improvement, particular in the case of poorer schools.

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work is at its best when the Ofsted Team consists of experienced HMIs with sufficient subject expertise to cover what is being inspected. Ofsted performance is at its worse when teams are too small (sometimes a single inspector) lack sufficient subject specialisms or when off-the-shelf agency inspectors of the one-size-fits-all persuasion are deployed in place of full-time experienced HMIs. The reliability, validity, and general credibility of inspection judgements has been undermined by an over-reliance on part-time inspectors contracted to agencies and a gradual dilution of full-time in-house HMIs. The stability, reputation and expertise of Ofsted inspectors would be greatly enhanced if some of the resources which have been diverted to external agencies were to be taken back in-house to help rebuild a full complement of HMIs covering all subjects and other areas of expertise.

4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process Consistency of inspection judgements is undermined by the fact that the criteria and focus of inspections change over time. Also, the reliance on part-time inspectors, each offering only a few days a year, introduces variability in the quality and consistency of inspections. The fact that Ofsted receives very few complaints or challenges to its inspection judgements gives the false impression that everything is in order when it is more often the case that schools have been so demoralised by the process, that they are in no ﬁt state to undergo another inspection even though this is the only recourse available them in such circumstances. Ofsted could be made more accountable if schools were empowered to voice legitimate criticisms without fear of reprisals.

5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process At present far too much weight is placed on documentation, eg SEF and achievement data, which inspectors receive prior to their visit. Inspectors may form inappropriate and sometimes prejudicial preconceptions on the basis of these indicators. Reports from our members indicate that inspection judgements are often driven by this data rather than being based on observing actual practice. The introduction of limiting judgements in September 2009 has given undue weight to a small number of factors which have been allowed to over-shadow what would otherwise be excellent practice in other areas. This has particular disadvantaged schools in socially deprived areas and has caused other schools to fail simply because some technical administrative matter is not fully in order. Although child protection is very important a school should not fail simply because its paperwork is not perfect.

6. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate Since 2007 when Ofsted’s remit was extended to include Children’s Services, the work of the Adult Learning Inspectorate and parts of HM Inspection of Court Administration, Ofsted’s resources have been over-stretched and under-resourced. In order to deliver this broader remit, resources have inevitably had to be diverted from cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w172 Education Committee: Evidence

education, which has traditionally been Ofsted’s strength, to newer areas of Children’s Services. It is questionable whether or not Ofsted has the skills mix to meet all these needs. Tension will inevitably be caused if an inspection of one area is led by an inspector whose skills lie in a different area.

7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy Greater autonomy should not mean less accountability. If neither Ofsted nor the Local Authority is involved with a school then it is difﬁcult to see how the school can be held to account. There is also a risk that the schools which remain within the Local Authority will be disadvantaged as these are often schools with more socially deprived cohorts and will, therefore, be subject to more frequent intervention from Ofsted. Equality of opportunity and accountability should go hand in hand with the right to a sound education. One way of ensuring that schools with greater autonomy remain accountable would be by making it a condition of the funding agreement that such schools must enter into partnerships with other schools with whom they should share their good practice. If it was felt that Local Authorities should no longer be part of the accountability mechanism for school which have been given greater autonomy, it may be that Children’s Trust Boards could take on this role, either alongside or as an alternative to Ofsted. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by HMC 1.1 HMC represents the headteachers of over 250 of the leading independent schools in the UK and Ireland. 1.2 HMC experience of Ofsted inspection comes through our boarding schools, who educate nearly 60% of boarding pupils in the UK. Most of our boarding schools are members of the Boarding Schools Association (BSA) and we feel that, following discussions with them, that they are best placed to comment formally on their experience of these inspections, and how this might inform the future development of Ofsted as an inspectorate. 1.3 In response to a request from the Department for Education, HMC has submitted details of a future model for the inspection of independent schools. Although it is the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), and not Ofsted, that currently has responsibility for the inspection of our schools, we thought that it would be helpful for the Select Committee to see this response.

HMC Response to the Department for EducationRegarding theFuture ofInspections 2.1 In the email dated 21st July 2010 the following initial questions were posed: — the appropriate length of any future inspection cycle for independent schools — whether any independent schools should be exempt from inspection and if so how they might be identiﬁed — whether more data should be collected in order to risk assess independent schools, and if so what that might be, and how it might be collected — the role of parental complaints as a trigger for inspections — the approach that might be taken to schools with weaknesses that need additional inspection, and how these additional inspections should be triggered

Key Issues 3.1 HMC has identified the following key issues for the future of inspection, both in terms of the underlying principles and the model adopted in practice: — over-riding principles, against which any proposals must be judged: — the system/model of inspection for the independent sector should not be any more onerous than for the state sector. (One might argue, in some respects, it should be less). — it should be less onerous than that which applies to non-ISC independent schools which do not benefit from the support or quality assurance of the Heads’ associations which belong to ISC. — the model, in practice, should be based on the following: — regulatory compliance (the equivalent of a car’s statutory MOT) should be clearly separated from school-improvement (the equivalent of a car’s service), done as and when the owner/school chooses, at the level and depth the owner/school decides, e.g. interim or full service; diagnostic check or focus on a specific aspect such as air conditioning). — all independent schools should have a common core of regulatory aspects/standards against which they are inspected with a few additional (add on) requirements for specific settings (e.g. boarding). — regulatory inspections should not occur any more frequently than 3 years (unless triggered by exceptional circumstances (such as a major concern about child welfare or standards); ideally it should be between 3 and 6 years (but we should insist it is no more frequent than for state schools). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w173

— regulatory inspection should consist of one inspector for one day, with a visit which samples what the school does, informed by pre-inspection analysis of data provided by the school. — data to be provided should include the school’s own self-evaluation (not necessarily the current version, which is overly long and complex) and other test/exam results. Beyond this, we should ask DfE to suggest (as a basis for discussion with us) what they would regard as the absolute minimum that is essential and necessary for the purposes of regulatory compliance. — parental complaints should not trigger an inspection unless they are serious and the school’s own internal complaints procedure has been exhausted. — the school improvement function of inspection, once separated from the compliance element, could be dealt with in different ways according to the proﬁle of the school. It might be that the state would continue to control school improvement in maintained schools and to prescribe how it should be done and inspected. We say that school improvement in independent schools is not the concern of government.

Separation of Regulatory Compliance and School Improvement

4.1 HMC would see great beneﬁts in separating regulatory compliance from school improvement. During the second cycle of ISI inspections, frequent changes to the regulatory framework resulted in the suspension of the cycle and a complete overhaul, not only of compliance, but the school improvement elements too. This was wholly unsatisfactory and did not allow ISI to complete a full set of second cycle inspections for all ISC schools.

4.2 Under the model proposed, associations could commit to a full cycle of inspections in the knowledge that the school improvement element would not have to be modiﬁed mid-cycle, even if there were changes to the regulations. This would reassure schools and allow for appropriate planning, allocation of resources, effective implementation, and evaluation.

Implications for theInspectorate

5.1 If a model of this type were to be adopted there would be signiﬁcant implications for both schools and the inspectorate (ISI). Schools would be in a position where they could, in theory, choose between inspectorates for either the compliance component or the school improvement element of inspection. It is quite possible that the professional associations, including HMC, would have an enhanced role, not only in providing access to school improvement services, but also in monitoring the outcome of inspections, e.g. HMC might determine the minimum ‘add-on’ school improvement services required for continued membership. This would support HMC’s responsibility for ensuring that schools continue to meet accreditation standards.

5.2 Under these proposals, ISI would continue to offer two distinct types of inspection: — the minimum compliance, similar to a slimmed down version of the interim inspection, but against streamlined standards, (we are assuming that the bonﬁre of regulations will ignite over the next year or two). This would be the same for ISC association schools as for non-ISC association schools (and where some might even choose Ofsted), and — school improvement (taking the best elements of peer review inspection developed in all three cycles of the standard inspection model).

5.3 The former of these would be public and statutory; the latter would be private and non-statutory, save as proof of its existence and adequacy. Adequacy would be assessed by reference to the outcomes of the school.

Conclusion

6.1 HMC is strongly committed to the principle of intelligent and rigorous accountability. Compliance inspections would deliver accountability against a key set of standards, reassuring both parents and the department that children are safe and well-educated. These inspections would be undertaken by professional inspectors from a wide range of educational backgrounds.

6.2 In proposing an additional school improvement element, free from regulatory compliance, HMC supports the desire of schools to identify their development needs and to employ inspection teams to seek the best way to achieve these aims. HMC would see this as the most appropriate way for individual schools to allocate vital school improvement resources.

6.3 The dual model proposed would make schools accountable whilst at the same time allowing them to make independent judgements about school improvement and professional development. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w174 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) Background 1. The National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) is the national charity dedicated to creating a world without barriers for every deaf child. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Education Committee’s inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. Views have been invited on a range of points. Our briefing focuses on the issue of the consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. 2. Parents of deaf children report that data on deaf children’s outcomes and local and specific information on the quality of local authority specialist provision available is generally unavailable. This prevents parents from being able to exercise informed choice about where their deaf child should be educated. In the absence of this data and information, Ofsted have an important role to play in ensuring that provision for deaf children is of a high quality whilst also allowing parents to hold schools and local authorities to account. Parents of deaf children particularly value being able to see a separate sub-grade on special educational needs (SEN) provision. However, NDCS is concerned that Ofsted inspections of provision for deaf children are not always conducted with the necessary rigour and awareness of the needs of such children, despite the importance of this to parents of deaf children. 3. NDCS submitted evidence152 to the Lamb inquiry into parental confidence in the special educational needs (SEN) system. The Lamb inquiry subsequently recommended that Ofsted “review the pool of inspectors with skills in particular areas of SEN and disability with a view to ensuring capacity to inspect special provision effectively”153. We understand that Ofsted have introduced new training programmes in response to this recommendation. Lamb also recommended that Ofsted be required to specifically report on provision for children with special educational needs. This has been taken forward by the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010. 4. NDCS strongly welcomes these steps. However, we continue to be concerned that inspections of provision for deaf children are not always as rigorous or consistent as they should be.

Skills Held by Specialist Inspectors of Provision for Deaf Children 5. In response to a parliamentary question154 by Glenda Jackson MP, Ofsted stated on 2 April 2010 that they have a core team of four inspectors with expertise in sensory impairment. There are also a number of additional inspectors, employed by Ofsted’s contractors as specialists in deaf education. NDCS is concerned that Ofsted have been unwilling to provide details of what skills and expertise these specialist inspectors of provision for deaf children should hold. 6. Ofsted’s rationale for not providing this information is that “specialist inspector expertise can come through a range of experience and there is no single route followed by each inspector”155. NDCS believes this misses the point. Regardless of how someone becomes an inspector, there should be a clear and transparent person specification for what a specialist inspector of provision for deaf children should know and what competencies they should possess. In other words, regardless of how they got there, there should be a clear “end point” for specialist inspectors. The failure to publish this information means that incentives to ensure that specialist inspectors are genuinely experts in deaf education are weak. It also means that parents of deaf children have no basis on which to assess whether the person who inspected any provision for deaf children had the right skills to be able to do so with the necessary rigour and expertise. 7. NDCS understands that general inspectors are required to have trained as teachers. In parallel, NDCS believes that specialist inspectors of provision for deaf children should be or have been a Teacher of the Deaf. Teachers of the Deaf are teachers who have gained an additional qualification in deaf education. However, Ofsted have stated that this is not a requirement for specialist inspectors of deaf provision, even though the qualification is mandatory for teachers who want to teach deaf children. 8. The experience of Mr Keer, a parent of two deaf children who attend a school in Ealing with a resource base for deaf children, demonstrates why this is important. Mr Keer complained to Ofsted on 12 January 2010 about an inspection that took place on 2021 October 2009 of Gifford Primary School. The inspection was carried out by Tribal, on Ofsted’s behalf. Based on feedback from his children, Mr Keer questioned that the inspectors had sufficient expertise. 9. On 5 February 2010, Tribal responded by letter to Mr Keer and argued that that the inspector in charge of inspecting the resource base was sufficiently experienced. Factors used to demonstrate this included that the inspector had taught two deaf children in her career and had attended “training for the deaf” and “liaised with a deaf teacher of the deaf”. Like Mr Keer, NDCS questions whether someone who has only ever taught two deaf children can reasonably be expected to offer a well-rounded view on deaf children’s education. 10. When this was escalated to Ofsted, Ofsted stated in a letter of 18 March 2010 to Mr Keer that their “review had found the inspection team did possess an appropriate range of qualifications and experience to 152 http://www.ndcs.org.uk/document.rm?id=4135 153 Recommendation 35. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/ 154 http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20090421/writtenanswers/part002.html#heading019 155 Letter of 5 May 2010 from Ofsted to Mr Keer. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w175

enable it to reach secure judgements on the quality of provision”. The letter did not adequate deﬁne what “appropriate” meant in this context. 11. Mr Keer further escalated the complaint to the Independent Complaint Adjudication Service for Ofsted in May 2010. On 1 July, Tribal wrote again to Mr Keer and stated that: “Following discussions with Ofsted, we have looked again at our list of inspectors whom we consider to have appropriate specialist expertise in deaf education. As a result, we have concluded that the expertise of the inspector in question did not meet Ofsted’s expectations in this circumstance.” Mr Keer’s original complaint was upheld. 12. NDCS is pleased that Ofsted and Tribal recognised, as Mr Keer long suspected, that the specialist inspector did not hold the necessary expertise. However, we are concerned that it took six months to reach this conclusion, and only through the persistent efforts of Mr Keer. NDCS remains concerned that, despite the above case, Ofsted remain unwilling to be transparent about the skills, expertise and competencies required by specialist inspectors even though Ofsted have stated that internally they have clear “expectations” on what is appropriate specialist expertise, which has been communicated to Tribal. 13. NDCS also feels that the process and the six month delay in upholding the complaint highlights weaknesses in Ofsted’s quality assurance process. Until the complaint had reached the adjudication service, there appeared to be little incentive for Ofsted to check that all specialist inspectors have the right skills and expertise. There does not appear to be any regular and proactive review of specialist inspector’s skills and the quality of their judgements.

Consistency ofInspections 14. In response156 to a parliamentary question by Virendra Sharma MP on 7 April 2010, Ofsted stated that 23 resource bases for deaf children in mainstream schools were inspected by Ofsted in the autumn term 2009. However, of these, only 6 were inspected by a ‘specialist’ inspector. This means that the inspections of specialist provision are likely to be inconsistent and variable in their quality if they have not always been inspected by a specialist. Ofsted explain that this was because “it is not always possible before scheduling inspections to identify accurately which schools have such provision.” Ofsted went on to state that they are working to address this difficulty and that “it is a key priority to match inspectors with specialist expertise to specialist provision.” 15. NDCS was surprised that Ofsted did not hold a list of resource bases across England and had not been seeking to collate this information. However, we welcome the commitment to address this. NDCS has since provided a list of provision, collated by the British Association of the Teachers of the Deaf. NDCS would welcome confirmation that it will now be possible to schedule inspections of specialist provision so that specialist inspectors are present and that improvements have been made in this area to ensure greater consistency. 16. NDCS is also concerned about the overall impression given by Ofsted inspection reports of provision for deaf children. If SEN inspection judgements of all provision for deaf children are aggregated, NDCS believes an impression is given where much of SEN provision is good. 17. NDCS reviewed the most recent inspection report from 317 schools with provision for deaf children. We found that in 60% of cases, the school had an overall grade that was good or outstanding. However, when we looked at the sub-grade for SEN for the same schools, 70% were graded good or outstanding. 18. If provision for SEN is ‘better’ than provision across the whole school, we would expect to see the attainment gap between deaf children and all children narrowing. However, government data on attainment shows that deaf children in 2009 were 43% less likely to achieve five GCSEs (including English and Maths) at grades A* to C, the same as it was in 2005. 19. In addition, in a large number of cases, Ofsted inspection reports refer to provision for deaf children in general terms, by simply stating that deaf children are making “good progress” and that provision is “good”, without being explicit or clear on what “good” means. For example, does a school with “good provision” for deaf children who communicate in British Sign Language ensure that all communication support workers have advanced sign language skills? Has the school produced an accessibility plan which highlights, for example, the state of the acoustics in the school? NDCS has rarely seen any reference to School Accessibility Plans in Ofsted inspection reports and this level of important detail is rarely available to parents of deaf children in Ofsted inspection reports. NDCS would like to see greater clarity from Ofsted on what good teaching and learning means when it comes to deaf children.

Possible Questions to Raise Why is it not possible to publish details of the skills and expertise that Ofsted expects a specialist inspector of provision for deaf children should hold? What mechanisms and incentives are in place to ensure that specialist inspectors are indeed specialists and parents of deaf children have accurate information on provision for deaf children? 156 http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2010/DEP2010–1196.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w176 Education Committee: Evidence

Have improvements been made in matching specialist inspectors to inspections of specialist provision since April 2010? If provision for children with special educational needs is as good as Ofsted’s individual inspection reports suggest, why has little progress been made in closing the attainment gap between deaf children and all children? What progress has been made in implementing the Lamb inquiry recommendations to Ofsted on special educational needs? October 2010

Memorandum submitted The Association for Science Education The Association for Science Education (ASE) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education Committee consultation on the role and performance of Ofsted. The Association for Science Education is the membership organisation for the science teaching profession. This response has been formulated in consultation with ASE’s national Primary Science and 11–19 committees and ASE’s special interest groups of the National Advisers and Inspectors Group for Science (NAIGS), and the Association of Tutors in Science Education (ATSE). Together these groups bring expertise and a range of viewpoints, including initial teacher education, education research, classroom practitioners and professional development. As a member organisation of the SCORE partnership, ASE has also contributed to, and supports, the response from SCORE which is included in the Appendix.157

What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit). The Association believes the purposes of inspection should be to: 1. Seek robust evidence to judge and report on the quality of provision for the education, care and wellbeing of the young people within the organisation being inspected. 2. Seek robust evidence to judge and report on the quality of provision of individual subjects within different school environments to support improvements in teaching and learning. 3. Produce and publicise reports regarding the quality of provision, identifying the good practice and areas for improvement observed during the inspection process. 4. Seek robust evidence to judge and report on the quality and accuracy of the organisation’s self- evaluation process and ﬁndings identifying good practice and areas for improvement. 5. Trigger swift and effective intervention in those organisations where provision is deemed inadequate or practice is potentially damaging to young people. And additionally for initial teacher education providers, to ensure and enhance the impact of a high quality workforce through: 1. Supporting and encouraging organisations that use their own research to underpin their teaching. 2. Providing a mechanism for promoting best practice in initial teacher education such as a focus on the value of appropriate practical work including outdoor science. 3. Providing an independent quality assurance mechanism that contributes to the value that universities place on their education departments.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 1. The inspection process has improved signiﬁcantly over the history of Ofsted inspections. The process of inspecting an organisation’s self evaluation is much more powerful than merely inspecting provision. 2. The process of inspection exposes and publicises weakness in practice and provision which continues to sharpen actions relating to organisational improvement and prevents organisations from deferring implementation of improvement strategies. 3. The inspection process can be perceived as the reason for organisational self-evaluation and improvement rather than the monitoring of self-evaluation and improvement.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 1. Performance of Ofsted has been good for many years but has been weaker more recently in certain areas. Subject reporting is now reliant upon small samples of school inspection reports rather than drawing on all school inspection reports and so there is much less evidence for supporting organisations to act upon. 157 Not published. See separate memorandum on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w177

2. The Association recommends that Ofsted’s subject specific reports in future are informed by significantly larger numbers of subject specific visits, which are based on the useful new Ofsted guidance for inspectors; and which focus on student achievement, the quality of teaching, the curriculum and the effectiveness of leadership and management. 3. Science is core subject in primary education but compared with the other core subjects, mathematics and English, fewer primary schools are visited in preparing primary science subject reports. The Association recommends that all core subjects are treated equally in terms of inspections and consequent reporting.

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 1. Ofsted have a responsibility to ensure that their inspectors are experienced, well-trained and of the highest calibre. For subject inspections, teachers expect their inspectors to be experienced and interested subject enthusiasts, and for science this is generally the case. 2. Most inspection teams are both fair and reasonable in their conduct of inspections and so few inspection results are unpredictable. This is how it should be. There are, on occasion, inspectors who interpret the inspection framework slightly differently or place different emphasis on different factors and these inspections can cause enormous concern to individuals within the organisation and within the supporting organisations. There is currently limited appeal against such inspection judgements and process for limiting their actions.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 1. Limiting judgements do cause issues. Some very effective organisations are deemed merely satisfactory overall because of a limiting judgement. 2. Since the 2009 framework, there have been some harsh safeguarding judgements within school and initial teacher education settings. 3. The Association recommends that the inspection system shifts its emphasis towards improving teaching and learning across the system as a whole and takes particular account of the quality of practical work in science. Teachers of science and their leadership team should be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of the three main purposes of practical work and to provide ample, purposeful opportunities with clear intended learning outcomes for pupils to 1) develop their knowledge and understanding of the natural world, 2) learn how to use scientiﬁc equipment or follow standard procedures and 3) develop their understanding of the scientiﬁc approach to enquiry. The Association recommends that inspectors look for evidence that teachers are regularly providing a range of high quality practical experiences including enquiries and investigations, teacher demonstrations, techniques and procedures in appropriately resourced laboratory spaces, the school grounds and beyond. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the National Governors’ Association

1. Introduction

1.1. The National Governors’ Association (NGA) is the national membership body for school governors. NGA has several categories of membership comprising individual governors, school governing bodies and independent local associations of school governing bodies. NGA seeks to represent the interests of all school governors and governing bodies in all phases and types of school.

2. Summary

The majority of NGA’s members are supportive of the inspection regime and value the information and judgements inspections provide.

2.1. Do we need an inspectorate?

Yes, it is important that there is an independent inspection regime.

2.2. If so what should the purpose of inspection be?

Schools must be held accountable for what they do and it is important that there is an effective system in place for improving the quality of provision. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w178 Education Committee: Evidence

2.3. How often should inspections happen? Schools should be inspected every three years.

2.4. What is your experience of the quality/consistency of Ofsted Members have generally reported positive experiences of Ofsted, with inspection judgements reﬂecting the governing body’s views of the school.

2.5. Who Should Ofsted report to? The NGA believes that there needs to be greater clariﬁcation about whether Ofsted is reporting to the headteacher or the governing body.

2.6. Do you feel the current inspection regime adequately covers governance? Anecdotal evidence from members indicates that there is some concern that inspectors do not fully understand governance or the role of governors.

2.7. Should any inspection report include recommendations for improvement Inspectors should offer advice on strategies for improvement.

2.8. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process The NGA believes that inspections should focus on teaching and learning and leadership, management and governance.

2.9. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for school operating with greater autonomy It is important to retain an inspection regime which can provide an independent validation of schools’ own self-evaluations.

3. Do we need an inspectorate? 3.1. Yes, it is important that there is an independent inspection regime. An independent inspection report provides vital information for governors in their role of holding the professional staff of the school to account.

4. If so what should the purpose of inspection be? 4.1. Schools must be held accountable for what they do and it is important that there is an effective system in place for improving the quality of provision. The inspection regime should primarily be to inspect, but an effective inspection regime will also provide advice on strategies for improvement. 4.2. The inspection should give a rounded picture of the school. Although the NGA accepts that attainment levels are important and disadvantage should not be used as an excuse for poor quality; we are concerned that the context of the school is not taken into account and in particular not enough emphasis is given to any progress the school may have made. An exclusive focus on attainment can also mean that ‘coasting’ schools can continue to coast. 4.3. The current inspection regime covers both teaching and learning and management capabilities. The NGA is concerned that Ofsted teams do not always have sufﬁcient expertise to judge adequately the latter. The NGA does not believe that many inspectors have a good knowledge of governance (see paragraph 8 below).

5. How often should inspections happen? 5.1. NGA members have differing views on this subject, but there is a broad consensus that inspections should be every three years as schools for the majority of schools. Where a school is underperforming inspection should be more frequent. 5.2. There should be a set timetable for all schools, as otherwise schools can be left in a limbo of wondering when the inspectors are going to arrive. 5.3. The NGA believes that outstanding schools should also be part of the regular inspection regime; as the performance of schools can and does sometimes change signiﬁcantly in a short period of time. An inspection will show whether or not a school is still outstanding.

6. What is your experience of the quality/consistency of Ofsted inspections? NGA Members have generally found the Ofsted inspection to be a positive experience. Members reported that they have found the overall Ofsted judgement consistent with their own views. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w179

Some members have reported issues with inspections/inspectors—these issues have been raised by individual NGA members and it is difficult to know how representative this is of the regime: — Some Ofsted inspectors have a ‘hobby horse’ which becomes the main focus of the inspection. — The impression given at the feedback session is not always mirrored in the final report. — Quality is variable and a poor inspector can cause a disproportionate amount of damage. — Having made an initial judgement before arriving at the school some inspectors are unable or unwilling to change this view, even when the school presents evidence to them. — Ofsted inspectors do not have the expertise to make judgements about value for money and their judgements are based on inadequate evidence and are flawed.

7. Who should Ofsted report to? 7.1. The NGA believes that there needs to be greater clariﬁcation about who Ofsted is reporting to. 7.2. The NGA does not believe it is entirely clear in the current regime who Ofsted is reporting to; whether it is the school or the governing body. The governing body is the accountable body in the school and is responsible for disseminating the report, but it is not currently compulsory for governors to be invited to the feedback session. The NGA believes that governors must be invited to the feedback session and must attend.

8. Do you feel the current inspection regime adequately covers governance? 8.1. The current inspection framework has detailed criteria for the inspection of governance arrangements. One of the NGA’s core objectives is to improve and promote high standards of governance and we believe it is important that governance continues to form part of the inspection framework. 8.2. Anecdotal feedback from members leads us to believe that governance is not always adequately covered or more importantly understood by inspectors. The NGA does not feel that governance is given sufﬁcient scrutiny by Ofsted. This is partly because the current shorter inspections mean that there is not enough time to scrutinise everything and although inspectors do speak to governors (usually the chair) they may give prominence to governing body minutes, which may say more about the minute taker than the governing body.

9. Should any inspection report include recommendations for improvement? 9.1. The NGA acknowledges that there is a tension between an inspection organisation and one that is providing advice. Nonetheless the NGA believes that the move under the current framework for Ofsted to not just highlight ineffectiveness, but to offer strategies for improvement is to be welcomed. An inspection is too important an activity in the life of a school to simply be a ‘health check’, there also needs to be advice on how to get/stay healthy.

10. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 10.1. The current framework is extensive and it is difﬁcult to inspect all the elements thoroughly. The NGA believes that the focus should be on teaching and learning and leadership, management and governance. Although other elements, such as community cohesion are important the NGA feels these would be better inspected as ‘themed inspection’ across a number of schools, rather than in the short time available in school inspection. 10.2. The NGA acknowledges that elements of the current self-evaluation form (SEF) have become too long and bureaucratic, but this is not the entire story. SEFs vary enormously in length and some of this is as result of schools focusing on narrative rather than evaluative information. Schools need to be clear that the self- evaluation form is not meant to record what they have done, but how that makes a difference. 10.3. The NGA is concerned that the abolition of the SEF will lead to deterioration in the quality of school self-evaluation. The NGA believes that there must be some consistency in the self-evaluation process and that there should be a generic self-evaluation form for schools.

11. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 11.1. The formal mechanism for maintained schools to report to parents is currently the School Proﬁle, which is widely viewed as unﬁt for purpose and a waste of time. 11.2. An independent inspection regime and reporting mechanism is important in any system, but especially where individual schools are responsible for their own school improvement. 11.3. Ofsted inspect only every three or more years and there needs to be a clear mechanism for schools to report to parents and the wider public in the interim. That could be some form of annual report or possibly a version of the school’s self-evaluation form. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w180 Education Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Governors of Independent Schools (AGBIS). This Association has not had time to consult its members concerning the future of Inspection of Independent Schools. It proposes to do so and would welcome the opportunity to communicate a summary of the views of our members in due course. In the meantime on behalf of AGBIS I offer the following brief and preliminary response: — We very much welcome the intention of the present government to scale back regulation to that which is necessary to guarantee the welfare and safety of pupils in our schools. — We recognise that there may be a need for the boarding provision to be separately regulated since concerns over boarders’ welfare and safety are different from those relating to day pupils. — We advise that the nature and length of inspection of regulatory compliance is reduced in proportion to the reduction in regulation. — We recognise that the extent of the nature, length and frequency of the inspection of the quality of education provided for our pupils (as opposed to inspection of regulatory compliance) should be simpliﬁed. The focus should remain on school improvement. However, we believe that the system of peer review has brought considerable beneﬁts to our schools and we wish that the system of peer review should not be cast aside lightly and without careful consideration. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Save the Children Introduction 1. Save the Children is the world’s largest independent children’s charity working across the UK as well as in over 120 countries around the world. We save children’s lives and support children by delivering long-term programmes and emergency aid in the areas of Education, Protection, Health and Hunger. We work to ensure that the rights of children in the UK and around the world are protected, promoted and respected in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and other international human rights instruments, with a particular focus on poverty and educational attainment. 2. Established in London in 1919, we now focus all our attention on ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. Our Inspiring Change programme works directly with children, young people and their families to respond to poverty in their local communities. Our evidence-based Families and Schools Together (FAST) prevention programme breaks the link between poverty and low levels of education. FAST coaches parents to support their children's early education (early years and primary), alongside, building home-school links and local social capital. 3. In the UK we work directly with children and families experiencing poverty and provide expertise, research and policy support to key partners including local authorities and national government. We are members of the End Child Poverty coalition and take a lead role in the campaign to end child poverty. We work with local authorities and other strategic bodies across the UK to ensure services are preventative, integrated and that they deliver for the most disadvantaged in society.

The Role and Performance of OFSTED 4.This submission focuses on the role of Ofsted in relation to what the purposes of inspection should be for children’s centres, schools and local children’s services. Save the Children is supportive of the current inspection frameworks in place. However, we believe that these frameworks could be adapted in order to support settings and providers to be more accountable for the impact they have on children and families living in poverty. Save the Children recommends that:

5. Children’s Centres: — The framework for inspection should remain the same and new regulations introduced in 2010 should not be diluted or revoked. — Inspectors should give specific attention to the quality of services and to evaluating the impact services have on improving outcomes for children living in poverty as a standing requirement, continuing to use eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) and the IDACI Pupil Residence Profile as proxies. — Inspectors should not only assess access rates to services but retention rates also, paying specific attention to the proportion of low income families that access services and complete any on- site interventions.

6. Schools: — Inspectors should continue to assess the performance of “at risk” groups, including the performance of children eligible for FSM as a standing requirement. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w181

— The parental engagement indicators introduced in 2009 should be reviewed and improved to be more outcomes rather than outputs-focussed. — Ofsted should consider what the future remit of inspection should be for assessing the effectiveness of any “pupil premium” expenditure in offsetting disadvantage.

7. Children’s Services: — Inspections should take into account local authorities’ child poverty needs assessments and feedback from any consultations undertaken with children, young people or families.

The Framework for Children’s Centre Inspection 8. Save the Children supports the principles of inspection and believes that Ofsted should continue to assess whether children’s centres are: (a) Facilitating access to early childhood services by parents, prospective parents and young children. (b) Maximising the benefit of those services to parents, prospective parents and young children. (c) Improving the well-being of young children. 9. We agree that specific attention should be paid to assessing whether children’s centres are providing high quality services and that these services are making measurable improvements to children’s and families lives. However, we believe that inspection could go further; it could directly examine whether children’s centres are improving outcomes for children living in poverty. We are proposing that inspection always takes into account the learning and development progress of children living in poverty compared to their better-off peers using data from Early Years Foundation Stage assessments. 10. Save the Children supports the new regulations that were implemented in April 2010 that require assessment reports to comment on the quality of leadership and management including whether: (a) The financial resources made available to the centre are managed effectively. (b) Young children, parents and prospective parents in the area served by the children’s centre, who would otherwise be unlikely to take advantage of the early childhood services offered through the centre, are identified and encouraged to take advantage of those services. 11. While we agree that it is crucial for children’s centres to be evaluated on their role in facilitating high access rates, we believe that inspection would be more useful if it took into account not only access rates but retention rates also. This data would assist inspectors to evaluate as to whether children’s centres are indeed maximising the benefit of their services to parents, prospective parents and young children and whether prospective children and families unlikely to take advantage of the early childhood services offered through the centre, are proactively identified and supported to take advantage of those services—from beginning to end. Formal evaluation mechanisms that measure retention rates and service-user satisfaction should form part of overall evaluation frameworks for both centre-based and outreach programmes as a matter of course. These findings could support centres to self-assess their own success at incentivising families who have not traditionally accessed services to access the centre. 12. Save the Children also strongly believes that in order to truly “maximise the benefits of services” operating out of or in conjunction with a children’s centre that inspection should assess how effectively a centre functions as a ‘multi-agency hub’ promoting a pipeline of local family support services158. By this we mean that inspection should examine the quality of implementation and evaluation of services, alongside, the quality of outreach work and signposting of families on to a range of services. While we understand that the commissioning of area-wide services takes place at a strategic level, every children’s centre has a key role to play in ensuring that services are affordable, accessible, inclusive and connect seamlessly to other more targeted services within a locality.

TheFramework forSchoolInspection 13. In order for schools to be accountable to ‘at risk’ children, it is our view that inspection should always assess how well pupils eligible for FSM are progressing in comparison to their non-eligible FSM peers. This assessment is an extension of the general examination of trends in pupil outcomes. We believe that this extension as a standing requirement is warranted because the achievement of pupils eligible for FSM will be a matter for concern in every school in the country What is more, if school spending mechanisms are altered to enable a “Pupil Premium” to be introduced, Ofsted will have a responsibility to assess whether schools are directing Pupil Premium spend towards offsetting disadvantage and whether Pupil Premium budget management is having a positive impact on disadvantaged pupil’s outcomes. 14. In 2009, Save the Children published A Child’s Portion by Tom Sefton from the London School of Economics. This research explored deprivation weighting across children’s services including schools and early-years settings. The report called for greater emphasis on how schools allocate deprivation funding and 158 Centre for Excellence and Outcomes (C4E0) (2010). Grasping the Nettle: Early Intervention for Children, Families and Communities. London: C4EO. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w182 Education Committee: Evidence

mechanisms to ensure all intended resources reach the appropriate schools.159 While the level of Pupil Premium quota per child and exact methods of distributing spend has yet to be agreed, it is likely that a Pupil Premium will mean that every school will be allocated additional funding based on the number of disadvantaged pupils they admit. This would be a step change away from the current school spending system, in which schools are devolved expenditure from the local authority based on historical school demographic data.

To match this change we need much clearer school accountability for the year-by-year progress made by pupils from the poorest homes. This must come through the publication of comprehensive data on the progress of poor pupils and clear assessments on the extent to which each school is offsetting disadvantage.

15. According to Ofsted (2007), pupils’ achievement clearly improved in schools where parental involvement/engagement was judged to be “outstanding”. From September 2009, Ofsted has been inspecting the effectiveness of a school’s engagement with parents and carers. Save the Children is highly supportive of changes to school inspection frameworks that seek to improve schools’ effectiveness in facilitating “parental engagement”160. A lack of parental engagement in a child’s learning as they are growing up can negatively impact on their chance to fulﬁl their full potential. If a child arrives at primary school behind, in terms of, not reaching the expected levels in literacy, for example, they are unlikely to ever catch-up and to achieve well during their educational experience and crucially, to have good chances in later life.

16. We know, however, that it is often the poorest children that are least likely to benefit from parental engagement161. Research has shown that children who are born into poor families or are malnourished in the first 2 years tend to have poorer levels of educational attainment or cognitive function162 than their better-off peers. Low-income parents can face a number of barriers to engaging with their children’s education. Constraints on time, low confidence, low self-esteem, low levels of educational skills and a lack of learning resources in the home can form a constellation of disadvantage that can serve to weaken the home learning environment and ability of parents to help their children to learn at home. Further evidence suggests that institutional structures can also act as social barriers that hinder engagement of disadvantaged families to attend any local parental engagement/family support services that may be on offer.163

17. Bearing these issues in mind, Save the Children feels that the parental engagement element of inspection could be further strengthened. We feel that the current parental engagement measures are too output-focussed rather than outcomes- focussed. We agree with the scope of parental engagement indicators but not the speciﬁc measures that are used to determine whether a school’s parental engagement practice is “satisfactory”, “good”, or “outstanding”. For example, the indicator relating to “impact of parental engagement” focuses on a need for partnerships, but does not offer any key performance indicators that could be employed to measure this effectively. It might be more useful to ask schools to provide data on any improvement in pupil outcomes since any measures to improve parental engagement were implemented. Further, schools could undertake parental engagement satisfaction sessions, whereby parents are asked how many take part in parental engagement related activities and to give their view on the level of parental engagement practice at the school in a variety of ways to ensure that all parents are supported to give feedback.

The inspection framework must encourage schools to deliver a pipeline of evidence-based parent engagement programmes and to systematically assess their impact.

The Framework for Children’s Services Inspection

18. Save the Children supports ongoing inspection of children’s services within a locality. As previously mentioned, we ﬁrmly believe that inspection should take into account the effectiveness of any local “continuum of services”. We mean by this that children’s services should, in part, be examined in their effectiveness at improving child, family and community outcomes via effective integration and multi-agency partnerships, systematic commissioning of high quality, evidence-based services responsive to local needs, and, robust evaluations of impact.

19. The Child Poverty Act (2010) places a duty on local authorities and their partners in England to conduct a child poverty needs assessment and to produce a strategy setting out how they will reduce child poverty. It is our view that going forward, inspection should always take into account the quality of needs assessments undertaken and whether a local authority has proactively sought to engage a culturally representative sample of children and young people in consultation. 159 Sefton, T, (2009). London School of Economics, A Child’s Portion: An analysis of public expenditure on children in the UK. London: Save the Children. 160 Parental engagement differs from parental involvement. Parental engagement is difficult to quantify but can refer to actions in which parents directly support their children’s learning and development either by nurturing, by offering moral support, by partaking in specific play and learning activities and also to having a good working relationship with their child’s school. Parental involvement on the other hand can refer to parental participation in general school activities that do not have a direct link to learning and development. Unlike parental engagement, parental involvement has been shown to confer little or no real benefit on the individual child in terms of improved educational outcomes (Okpala et al. 2001; Harris and Goodall, 2008). 161 Harris, A and Goodall, J (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter. London: DCSF, Pg 6. 162 See note 4. 163 See note 4. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w183

Recommendations Save the Children recommends that: Children’s Centres: — The framework for inspection should remain the same. — Inspectors should give speciﬁc attention to the quality of services and to evaluating the impact services have on improving outcomes for children living in poverty. — Inspectors should not only assess access rates to services but retention rates.

Schools: — Inspectors should continue to assess the performance of “at risk” groups, including the performance of children eligible for FSM. — The parental engagement indicators introduced in 2009 should be reviewed. — Ofsted should consider what the future remit of inspection should be for assessing the effectiveness of any ‘pupil premium’ expenditure in offsetting disadvantage.

Children’s Services: — Inspections should take into account local authorities’ child poverty needs assessments and feedback from any consultations undertaken with children, young people or families. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Independent Children’s Homes Association 1. Introduction ICHA is a national umbrella organisation representing and supporting independent providers of children’s residential provision. We have had a representative on the National Consultative Forum for Ofsted since they took over from CSCI. In terms of the future of Ofsted, lots of rumours abound prior to this consultation—from abolition to less intense regulation. In the view of many of our members, a move to “long arm” inspection for good homes (with more frequent focus on weaker provision or where there are alerts/concerns, or just a lot of change, etc) is probably a constructive way to go, but will only really work if left with Ofsted, the regulator that knows us well. It is important to note that there is no advice function within Ofsted (primarily the only function providers ever reported as missing from CSCI days) and now that NCERCC has had its funding dropped, any forum for good practice, research and dissemination to the sector has disappeared. ICHA’s view is that if long arm inspection comes into force, it gives more strength to the argument for an advice hub, wherever that may be located (possibly including Jonathan Stanley at NCB for continuity and also to harness his knowledge and expertise in that “hub”). In relation to some of the bullet points from the consultation paper for the Select Committee we offer the following comments:

2. The Performance of Ofsted in Carrying Out itsWork Pros: 1. Ofsted have a good understanding of children’s homes and have built up experience. 2. Issues with Ofsted have exponentially declined since it took over from CSCI. 3. Consistency has improved (although it is impossible to remove all subjectivity when a system is based on people making judgements on regulations which are mostly not mathematical and therefore open to interpretation). 4. Education is inspected by Ofsted—it is critical that education and social care for children are linked up and best if they are integrated together. 5. Ofsted offer improving guidance and greater clarity to see how judgments are made. 6. Arguably, the overall quality of residential care has improved since Ofsted took over—primarily because providers care about the children and want to improve and gain better judgments. 7. Processes have become simpler and quicker, for example in relation to variations. 8. Ofsted have become more open and ﬂexible in recognising innovation and creativity that is in the interests of improving services for children in care.

Cons: 1. Inspection by people is always going to be affected to a degree by subjectivity and despite Ofsted’s efforts to eliminate this, the problem still exists; worse in some areas than in others. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w184 Education Committee: Evidence

2. There is no advice function to Ofsted (as there was with CSCI) and whilst this was compensated for by the existence of NCERCC (run by Jonathan Stanley, housed by NCB), that function has had its funding withdrawn and there is currently nothing to replace it. 3. A small number of ICHA members would not be sorry to see Ofsted go. It would appear that this is mainly based on very bad experiences of individual inspectors who have made their own quite forceful interpretations of the regulations (and there seems to be difﬁculty in resolving this—either because the provider is frightened to complain, or because Ofsted has been ineffective in addressing disputes).

There are many mixed views on the performance of Ofsted. The majority view seems to be that residential providers do not need another change of regulator in our sector—first NCSC then CSCI and now Ofsted— every time there is a change providers go through the mill, not to mention the children we look after. In these times of severe financial difficulty, we need to maximise efficiency and reduce bureaucracy, and further improve what we have, not re-invent the wheel.

The minority who are critical of Ofsted seem to have major problems with either individual inspectors, or with what they consider to be important issues which Ofsted appears not to know how to address and/or decides that it is not its responsibility.

3. The Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted Inspection Process

In the opinion of some ICHA members Ofsted has improved exponentially since it took over. In the opinion of ICHA’s Ofsted link person, many of the issues that come to light within the organisation are annoying mistakes (which need to stop happening); but the number of issues being raised has signiﬁcantly decreased and there is clear evidence of improved consistency in inspection. From the NCF perspective, since social care was given a better focus, things have improved even faster (helped by the separation of Early Years) as there is an improved focus for the two groups. Ofsted seem to be consulting more frequently with the sector and working with us to improve.

To be fair to Ofsted, they have clearly stated that if names are named and details given they will address any issue—the problem is that many providers are frightened of repercussions from their inspector and are reluctant to provide speciﬁc details. Those who have provided detail have usually succeeded in rectifying anything unfair, although not always as quickly as they would have liked.

4.The Weight Given to Different Factors within the Inspection Process

Focus on the individual children in placement—look at their progress, tracked from initial benchmarks, established on admission. Safeguarding and welfare—ensure that they are not only contained but also that they receive the support and/or treatment to help them move on.

Focus on stability & consistency—happy and well supported staff who are properly equipped to manage and support the children in their care.

Limiting judgments need to go. These were sometimes used senselessly, seriously affecting the operating ability of providers who were essentially doing a good job. Since Ofsted now has the power to close poor provision (under the Children and Young People’s Act 2008), this is unnecessary.

5. Whether Inspection of All Organisations, Settings and Services to Support Children’s Learning and W elfare is Best Conducted by a Single Inspectorate

Children in care need strong links between their social care and education. The integration of the education should be paramount. Also, attention to health issues (including mental health) to tackle barriers to learning needs more attention to ensure that those with traumatic pasts are supported to function better in education to improve chances of learning.

6. Summary

On a ﬁnal note, it is important to state that purchasers are increasingly basing their placement decisions on Ofsted report ratings. This means that providers strive for the highest rating possible so as to ensure commercial viability through minimising vacancies and maximising placement success. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w185

Memorandum submitted by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education I am writing in response to the Education Select committee’s call for evidence into the role and performance of Ofsted. The key issues that the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) would like to bring to your attention are:

1. The Independence of Ofsted Ofsted has played a key role in the evaluation of educational provision by examining the effectiveness of provision offered by individual settings or Local Authorities as well as undertaking focused reviews of the provision nationally. It is essential that any inspectorate of the future continues to function in a capacity which renders it independent from the mechanism which shapes the educational provision that is made available.

2. TheRemit of Ofsted Currently inspections of schools listen to the views of the stake holders who comprise the current school community. This however, does not take account of the views of those who live within the schools area of responsibility but do not have a direct link with the school as parents, staff or governors. We feel that this is a signiﬁcant stake holder group whose voices need to be heard if schools are to be held accountable for their readiness to provide for the full diversity of learners who live in the local community.

3. Training of Inspectors We acknowledge recent developments in this area but remain concerned that in assessing provision in regards to equality and diversity fundamental values upon which judgements are based may not be shared or understood in the same way by everyone. We believe that is essential that inspectors clearly understand why the challenging of all forms of discrimination and prejudice matter and are committed to equality for all children irrespective of any perceived or actual difference. This must hold true across all inspectors irrespective of their own sexual, gender, ethnic, socio-economic, religious or other personal sense identity. Similarly, Inspectors must be familiar with the social model of disability. We recognise that more detailed equalities training may be required to enable the necessary uniﬁed starting point for inspections.

4. Equality and Diversity as a Limiting Judgement We believe it is crucial that equality and diversity remain a limiting judgement as no provision should be granted the award of “outstanding” where one or more groups of learners’ speciﬁc needs are not adequately taken into account. While this point clearly has links with that raised in (3) concerning assessment it is about more than this. “The special educational needs and disability review” (Ofsted, 2010) identiﬁed that young people want successful relationships and friendships; independence; choice about what to do with their spare time; and the opportunity to work. These criteria should be considered for all minority groups within every provision, across all key stages. As the evaluating body Ofsted must address the Single Equality Duty when it comes into effect within schools or the legislation will lose its power.

5. The Accountability of Ofsted It is not enough for Ofsted to make suggestions on ways of improving provision. Ofsted has a central role to play in helping enforce its own recommendations as its voice is both respected and powerful. Through assessing how far provision adheres to the Single Equality Duty, making recommendations where provision falls short, and both assessing and monitoring the effectiveness of remedying such shortfalls, Ofsted is in a unique position to help provision signiﬁcantly improve to encompass, and meet the needs of, the full diversity of learners. We believe that part of Ofsted’s role, for example, is to help challenge providers where parents feel that they have to ﬁght for their child’s rights. Suitable mechanisms need to be in place to enable this to occur. October 2010

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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w186 Education Committee: Evidence

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. TheImpact of theInspectionProcess onSchoolImprovement 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.164 Furthermore, 65.2% agreed or strongly agreed that non-management staff had also embraced this culture.165 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.166 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.”167 164 37.0% said “strongly agree “; 55.0% said “agree“. 165 12.7% said “strongly agreed “; 52.5% said “agree“. 166 36.7% said “yes, definitely “; 46.5% said “yes, probably“. 167 Kirkland Rowell can provide the names of the schools mentioned on a confidential basis. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w187

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.”168 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,169 while 55.3% had found some or much new information.170 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 23 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,171 75.4% nevertheless said the time and resources spent on self-evaluation were worthwhile.172 Furthermore, 97.3% felt very or quite confident in managing the school’s self-evaluation processes.173 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. 168 John Dunford, Leader, October 2009, p 19. 169 6.1% said “revealed no new information “; 37.9% said “revealed little new information“. 170 54.3% said “revealed some new information “; 1.0% said “revealed much new information“. 171 34.1% said “a very big burden“; 39.1% said “a large burden“. 172 22.9% said “strongly agree“; 52.6% said “agree“. 173 53.3% were “very confident“; 44.0% were “quite confident“. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w188 Education Committee: Evidence

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 four 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w189

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 theResearch 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 1,400 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. Percentage of primary schools Percentage of primary schools in the Overall effectiveness inspected 174 sample 2008–09 June/July 2010

Outstanding 16 22.3 Good 52 42.7 Satisfactory 29 34.7 Inadequate 3 0.3

October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Association for Tutors in Science Education The Association for Tutors in Science Education (ATSE) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education Committee consultation on the role and performance of Ofsted. The Association for Tutors in Science Education is the Initial Teacher Education Committee of the Association of Science Education which is a membership organisation for the science teaching profession in the United Kingdom. This response has been formulated in consultation with the ASE and members of the ATSE committee who have all been or are currently working in Science Teacher Education in the UK. As a member organisation of the ASE, ATSE members have also contributed to, and support, the response from ASE which is included in the Appendix.175

What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) ATSE believes the purposes of inspection within Initial Teacher Education should be to: 1. Help organisations to improve practice through formative evaluation rather than summative judgements. 2. Support self evaluation as a tool for improvement such that good practice is shared across the community since Ofsted has the privileged position of having an overview of practice in all ITE organisations. 3. Support the science education of trainees within the organisation through emphasising the development of subject knowledge for teaching as well as subject knowledge per se. 4. Provide an independent quality assurance mechanism so that post ofsted inspection, in order that practice can be improved, CPD for staff is emphasised. 174 The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2008/09, p 23. Figures have been rounded. 175 Not published here. See separate memorandum on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w190 Education Committee: Evidence

5. Emphasise that a high quality science education can only be provided where ITE staff are supported by their departments in engaging in research and scholarly activity. 6. Provide an independent quality assurance mechanism that can help raise the value of education departments in universities, all too often tutors in education departments and particularly within science education are undervalued and over worked with little time for professional self development- universities should be helped by Ofsted to reconsider the ‘contact’ hours allocated to tutors so that it is commensurate with staff in other departments.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement

ATSE believes that 1. Whilst the inspection process has improved signiﬁcantly in recent years ( as 2008 onward there has been greater emphasis placed on an organisation’s self evaluation) , Ofsted could support organisations in their development of school based training models by sharing the good practice that is seen in schools partnerships in different ITE providers. One suggestion is that Ofsted lead in the formation of Cluster organisations so that good practice, as witnessed by Oftsed can be disseminated. 2. Whilst the process of inspection exposes and publicises weakness in practice and provision institutions tend to ‘play safe’ with regard to the school based training elements of initial teacher education. Ofsted needs to realign its practice to emphasis the beneﬁts of ‘different ways of getting to the same end point’ which should be organisational improvement. Such emphasis should be made public and where organisations have collaborated to improve practice in school based training elements these organisations should be highlighted and lauded by Ofsted.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work

ATSE believes that performance is 1. Quite variable and is in most instances dependent on the team that is allocated. 2. Greatly variable in the style that is adopted by the team leader and consequently the relationships that are built with those being inspected. 3. Science is a core subject in primary education but compared with the other core subjects, mathematics and English, fewer primary schools are visited in preparing primary science subject reports. We recommend that all core subjects are treated equally in terms of inspections and consequent reporting.

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

ATSE believes that science tutors and those they work with in partnership schools 1. Have an expectation that subject inspectors to be experienced and interested subject enthusiasts, and for science this seems to be generally the case. 2. Have had inspection teams whose interpretation of the inspection framework differs markedly from that expected. Where this has happened, workplace stress has been experienced by those being inspected.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process

ATSE believe that 1. At times it is not always possible for those being inspected to show case their best practice since there is little choice when inspection occurs thus institutions do not have the opportunity to show what they are most proud of since it may not occur during the weeks when Ofsted are in. 2. That there should be greater weighting during inspections of ITE in science on how well the institution emphasises the critical engagement of trainees for teaching science. Inspections might beneﬁt much more by looking for example of how institutions engage, inspire, create and innovate rather than just looking for compliance and coverage. We recognise the latter are important but not at the expense of the former. 3. One of the greatest dangers of the inspection process is the disproportionate weighting given to certain factors. The best inspection teams ensure that they listen carefully to those being inspected and that they cover all aspects and examine carefully the contexts prior to passing judgement. It is vital that the whole picture is taken into consideration. 4. Limiting judgements do cause issues. Some very effective organisations are deemed merely satisfactory overall because of a limiting judgement. 5. Since the 2009 framework, there have been some harsh safeguarding judgements within school and initial teacher education settings. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w191

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate ATSE believe that 1. There is some value in having a single “evaluation” body since “good practice” in the different settings and services of education maybe shared across phases or where it is not deemed as being so ‘good’ can be put into perspective. This may be easier for the inspectorate and fairer for those being inspected. 2. Greater validity and reliability of Ofsted outcomes may be ensured if conducted by a single body across all settings and services.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy ATSE believes that 1. As school/institutional leadership and management greatly dictates the quality of provision it is vital that those schools now being allowed to exercise greater autonomy undergo inspection too. Even those schools deemed outstanding on one occasion should be inspected since leadership can change and so consistency of performance may be affected. 2. It would be useful if Ofsted were to adopt the kind of role previously adopted by LEA inspectorate, to advise, support and celebrate rather than the accountability role they currently have. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Care Quality Commission Introduction 1. Established by the Health and Social Care Act 2008, the Care Quality Commission is the regulator of health and adult social care in England. We register and inspect providers of services including the NHS and private and voluntary healthcare and our regulatory model requires organisations to comply with a set of essential standards of quality and safety. 2. The scope of registration currently applies to the NHS and to private, voluntary and community interest companies. Dentists will be required to register by April 2011 and independent doctors and GPs from April 2012. 3. One of CQC’s core strategic aims is to regulate effectively, in partnership, and CQC and its predecessor, the Healthcare Commission have been working with Ofsted (and its predecessor inspectorates) for over ﬁve years to align our inspection programmes as they relate to children health and welfare. This joint work has primarily been related to inspection of children’s social care, and our submission below reﬂects our experience of this aspect of Ofsted’s work the merger in 2007. We have had little relevant experience of Ofsted’s involvement in the inspection of education or early years childcare services.

Partnership Working 4. Our main programme of joint inspection activity has been the Integrated inspections of children’s services with which the Committee will be familiar—CQC are the only partner and we have ﬁelded at least one inspector to each of the 33 inspections completed to date, of which 31 have been published. 5. This follows the multi-inspectorate Joint Area Review programme, building on the learning but striving to reduce the “burden” of inspection on authorities and their partners and improve the focus and clarity of the inspection activity. 6. CQC’s involvement in these inspections is crucial in order to provide an inclusive view of how health services are working in partnership to improve outcomes for children and interpret the complexities of processes and approaches across a range of health care providers. We gather evidence and information about providers of services which contributes directly to our judgement framework and assessment of compliance with Essential Standards of Safety and Quality, but also contribute fully to sharing evidence and ﬁndings with Ofsted colleagues.

Benefits of Joint Inspections 7. The programme has high impact within local authorities and health partners, and an “inadequate” finding, particularly for overall safeguarding or capacity to improve usually results in a form of attention or intervention from Government office or DfE. Increasingly the contribution of health partners to the outcome is being considered pertinent and we have found that the inspections can expose areas both where there is effective partnership working and also where co-operation could be significantly improved amongst local agencies— there is no other vehicle at present to achieve this, and a CQC-badged report is taken seriously by SHAs and health organisations which can stimulate rapid and effective improvement. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w192 Education Committee: Evidence

8. The findings reflect both where social care is excellent but health partners may be experiencing challenge, and also the converse—good health relationships and effective working that are hampered by pressure within the Authority. Since partnership work is essential to effective child protection, particularly in early intervention and access to vulnerable families, we work with Ofsted to examine evidence where one partner has indicated that others are “not pulling their weight” so that our joint report reflects a true picture of an area’s services and responsibilities for children. 9. Without the involvement of Ofsted in these inspections, and the leadership of the programme as a whole, it is unlikely that there would be any substantive routine inspection of integrated safeguarding and child protection arrangements which includes health care organisations as partners in a wider system. The two-week cross-organisation inspection model is not one which CQC use routinely in other areas of our work, although there is scope for individual compliance reviews against standards where concerns are raised about individual providers. 10. Our work with Ofsted over five years has resulted in a strong methodology, a clear understanding of our mutual procedures and arrangements and, we feel, an increasingly integrated approach to joint inspection. The short notification period ensures that we see organisations “how they are” but also we often note that the prospect of an inspection does facilitate improved working together across partners towards a common objective. 11. Onsite, Ofsted demonstrate an extremely professional and systematic approach to evidence gathering and evaluation, although the detail and structure of the fortnight can depend heavily on the individual Lead Inspector. Judgements are made by consensus only after full and frank discussion including CQC team members, and all inspectors stand by the agreed judgements and will defend them rigorously. 12. With the changes proposed in the health White Paper, and increasing pressure on local authorities it is important that there is a process to monitor the quality of child protection arrangements across partnerships of services and ensure that there is a mechanism to report any likelihood of services putting children at risk. 13. This needs to be a lean programme, and staff working on the inspection teams are extremely diligent and thorough, which is widely acknowledged by those who have experienced an inspection. Findings and likely judgements are explained and shared during the inspections and feedback is received and acted upon where appropriate by both ourselves and Ofsted.

Areas for Development 14. We appreciate there is challenge from some quarters on the need for external inspection at all, and whether in resource-stretched times less or no inspection is proposed. 15. The integrated inspection programme has so far identified a significant number of services which are considered inadequate, and follow up inspection has noted progress as a result of intervention triggered by inspection findings. It is not clear how these would have been identified by other means. 16. There is greater scope for use of peer reviewers, but his has been slow to establish because of the need for training and induction in order to acknowledge the inspection process and contribute effectively. Similarly, involving Children or young people as inspectors has been explored a number of times during the five years we have been working with Ofsted but it has unfortunately proved too costly and complex to justify the clear benefits of involvement. 17. We are about to publish, jointly, a revised framework and handbooks for inspection which reflect the feedback we have received over the first year of the programme. It provides a better balance between thoroughness and burden and we have been impressed by the flexibility that Ofsted have shown in acknowledging the regulatory model of CQC and incorporating it throughout the framework.

Looking Ahead 18. Working in partnership for these inspections works. The challenge of different approaches which reflect the different models of provision and governance arrangements in inspected services is helpful and maintains rigour and quality judgements. 19. We are aware of the tremendous impact of structural or organisational change on an organisation and particularly on the front line people within it when systems change, aims and objectives are reviewed and “business as usual” is challenged at all levels. 20. With the changes affecting local government and health at the present time there is a real benefit in organisational stability within a regulator, enabling us to build on existing knowledge and relationships and ensure a consistent inspection programme within an increasingly changing environment. 21. In terms of CQC’s involvement with the programme, this is a valuable opportunity to conduct a “deep dive” into a specific area of care, scanning several organisations across a number of our Essential Standards which complements and adds richness to our usual compliance work. If the inspection programme were to cease then the depth of our knowledge about children’s healthcare provision would be significantly reduced as cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w193

there is currently no capacity or remit for CQC to conduct such focused activity on a routine rolling basis through other means.

Annex BRIEF SUMMARY OF HEALTH STRUCTURES Within a local authority the term “health contribution” is often cited, for example to joint working groups or investigations, but many are unclear of what this means. There is usually one, but may be up to three Primary Care Trusts contributing to a single authority or a PCT may cover two authorities. PCTs commission services across all healthcare for their population but usually host a provider service arm, covering (for children) school nursing, heath visiting etc. GP services are commissioned by the PCT as are A&E, maternity and acute (hospital) care. Other emergency care activity such as walk in centres may be run by acute or community services. Mental health for adults and CAMHs services may be covered by a specialist mental health trust that holds contracts with several PCTs. Community health services, such as those for disabled children, may be co-funded with the authority or external partners. Each of these discrete providers contributes to “health” in an area and CQC’s own inspection and monitoring processes can gather relevant data to hold providers of services to account. CQC’s approach to planned inspection for children takes the form of a “compliance inspection” mapping our ﬁndings for each partner organisation against our own Essential Standards under the expected outcomes. We also contribute towards an overall judgement for health partners within the area, led by the commissioning role of the PCT(s). October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the General Teaching Council for England Summary — The Select Committee is encouraged to consider the contribution of inspection to accountability in the round, and to bear in mind that there may be other accountability processes that may better serve some accountability objectives. — The Committee might usefully explore whose interests are captured and whose needs met by inspection in its current form, with reference to (a) the process, and (b) the nature and use of the data generated. — There is a strong value for money case for optimising the contribution of inspection to improvement, particularly in straitened times. — Knowledge transfer between schools and settings is more important in an environment characterised by more autonomy and diversity. — It is counter-productive to overburden inspection, requiring it to meet too many needs—this can obscure a sharp focus on the most important areas. — The value of inspection is maximised if it is structurally embedded in a sustained, on-going process of reﬂection, account-giving, innovation and improvement. — Inspection needs to continue to be proportionate, and greater emphasis might usefully be given to the ‘permission to innovate’ conferred by a school’s “clean bill of health”. — A reconsideration of inspection might usefully form part of a wider rebalancing of resources between quality assurance and quality improvement. — The GTC is concerned that the well-being of children and young people should continue to be a focus of school and teacher accountability, although care is needed to ensure that accountability in this regard is sensible. — Similarly, the GTC favours the continuation of an explicit emphasis on schools’ contribution to the life chances of all pupils. — The question of whether there ought to be one or more inspectorates of children’s services is to the GTC of lesser order than the credibility and expertise of inspection teams in every kind of setting. — If there continues to be one inspectorate responsible for children’s services, it should be encouraged to realise the potential opportunities for cross-sector knowledge and learning.

Introduction 1. The General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) is the independent professional body for the teaching profession. Its main duties are to regulate the teaching profession and to advise the Secretary of State on a range of issues that concern teaching and learning. The Council acts in the public interest to contribute to raising the standards of teaching and learning. 2. On 2 June 2010, the Secretary of State announced his intention to legislate to abolish the GTCE during the next parliamentary session. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w194 Education Committee: Evidence

3. Inspection is one tool for accountability; professional regulation is another. The GTCE responds to this inquiry as part of the machinery of accountability at the present time. The advent of the GTCE led to teachers in England being held to account for the ﬁrst time as professionals (as distinct from employees in a particular setting) for their competence as well as their conduct. 4. As a professional regulatory body for teaching the GTCE takes the view that accepting accountability for the impact of one’s professional practice is one of the hallmarks of a profession, and that the willingness of practitioners in disciplines like teaching to accept this accountability is a public good. This is a theme that is reﬂected in the code of conduct and practice for teachers. 5. This response focuses on those inquiry questions to which the GTC’s work in the area of accountability can make a contribution. The GTCE undertakes to send the Committee wider material on the future of accountability as it is produced. 6. The GTC would be happy to supplement this written submission with oral evidence if helpful to the Committee.

Accountability in Children’s Services 7. Accountability should be the means by which legitimate stakeholders in an enterprise receive an account from the agents of that enterprise, of their actions. But it is only true accountability if the act of account giving enables stakeholders to take action: to seek redress if standards are unacceptable; to sanction; to influence future practice. The GTCE has used the following definition in its work on accountability: “Accountability can be defined as the methods by which the actor may render an account (i.e. justify their actions and decisions) to the stakeholders and by which the stakeholders may hold the actor to account (i.e. impose sanctions or grant permissions)176” 8. Moving from wider children’s services to a consideration of the work of schools, it is worth beginning by setting out the many ways in which schools are held to account for their work. Performance tables record their outcomes in statutory tests and public examinations. Governing bodies generally reflect the community of interest in a school in order that they can hold the leader to account for its work. They also review the performance of the head teacher annually. Teaching staff, and increasingly other staff, are subject to performance management. Teachers are registered with, and regulated by, the General Teaching Council for England. The Government currently sets out the curriculum framework (the non-statutory but widely implemented National Curriculum) and in recent years have also been active in promoting particular approaches to pedagogy (e.g. literacy and numeracy strategies, teaching of phonics). Schools are inspected against national criteria and inspection reports are published. 9. One important question for the Select Committee is whether legitimate stakeholders in education feel empowered by the range and means of accountability mechanisms acting on schools at the present time. These might include children and young people, parents and carers, teachers and other staff, other children’s services, local communities, employers, wider society, and the government as funder and on behalf of the perceived interests of any of the other stakeholders. For some schools, financial or denominational sponsors are also important stakeholders. Do their priorities shape what is scrutinised? Does accountability help stakeholders to be more discerning about services? Do the right consequences flow from holding a service to account? Do things get better? 10. The GTCE hopes that the Select Committee will situate its work on inspection in the wider context of accountability. It may wish to consider: — What particular role within accountability should inspection play? What roles should other accountability processes play? — What should inspection look like, bearing in mind considerations of effectiveness and cost? — Is the model of inspection, and the use made of resulting evidence, consonant with aspirations held for schools as institutions of learning, and for teaching as a profession?

The Purpose of Inspection 11. Inspection should be one of the means by which the state assures itself about standards of education, on behalf of the citizen, among others. It can be ﬁt for the purpose of providing a snapshot of performance within and across schools as sites of learning, with some caveats about inspection evidence as a source of comparative data. At its best, it has taken good account of the challenges individual schools face as well as the value they add; at its worst, it has said more about a school’s intake than its outcomes. 12. It can be counterproductive if the state tries to drive every aspiration it has of schooling through inspection, or if it becomes the single device through which stakeholders have their say about what matters in education. 13. In its current form inspection is not embedded in any sustained, on-going improvement focused form of accountability and that is a weakness if inspection is to play a greater role in improvement. 176 Bovens (2005) “Public Accountability” in Ferlie, E., et al The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford: OUP cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w195

14. Inspection can make a contribution to judgements about teaching quality but on its own it represents a fairly limited means of doing so, and there are other accountability mechanisms that have more to contribute in this regard, including performance management and professional accountability. 15. Inspection can provide parents with insights that help with their decisions about school preferences but evidence about the extent and nature of parents’ use of reports suggests there may be better ways of helping parents to be discerning about schools. Ideally, accountability tools should help parents to be insightful and inﬂuential throughout their children’s school careers, and not only when expressing a preference between schools.

The Impact of Inspection on School Improvement 16. In recent years OFSTED has presented research and evidence to support its assertions of the positive impact of inspections on school improvement. A constant theme of head teachers’ perspectives is that inspection did not tell them what they did not know about the school’s shortcomings but the external reinforcement gave them a mandate for more robust action to secure change. This may imply a need to revisit the leverage of school leaders in conveying urgency about improvement to their stakeholders. 17. If inspection continues to be a signiﬁcant element of accountability for children’s services, the GTCE recommends that every effort is made to maximise its contribution to improvement. There is a value for money case for doing this in a time of cuts, but there is also a strong case to be made about generating and disseminating knowledge about effective practice across the system at a time when provision is set to diversify and providers to become more autonomous. There is an opportunity to refocus Ofsted’s school work in ways that strengthen its contribution to improvement, and these might include: — Increasing the emphasis on thematic reviews and improving the throughput of their messages to practitioners. — Stepping up the involvement of school leaders , thereby building capacity for critical friendship and supporting knowledge transfer within the profession—as well as demonstrating a level of trust in the professionalism of school leaders. — Engineering a better articulation between the episodic external inspection and a sustained process of improvement focussed critical friendship, such as school improvement partners (SIPs), at their best, have provided. 18. The form in which inspection ﬁndings are reported may also need revision if practice improvement is to be a primary function of inspection. 19. The GTCE suggests that the Select Committee might usefully consider how other accountability mechanisms such as performance management and professional registration might make more of a contribution to improvement. The existence of a range of accountability mechanisms might be portrayed as burdensome but it might be argued that multiple accountabilities can serve the public interest. For example, strong professional accountability can provide a protection for professionals and their service users where managers within settings apply pressure to act in ways that are unethical. 20. In its health reforms, the Coalition government is proposing to enhance the status and infrastructure around public health, so that there is a dual focus on keeping people healthy and treating people who are ill. The same rebalancing is needed in education, in order that more of our scarce resources are spent enabling the majority of schools to succeed. By implication, in data rich times it should be possible to spend less on identifying a minority of schools that do not meet expectations by targeting activity proportionately where problems are evident or anticipated. 21. The Committee may wish to explore the extent to which a ‘clean bill of health’ might serve as more of a ‘licence to innovate’ for schools that are demonstrably and consistently deemed effective.

The Weighting of Factors in the Inspection Process 22. In September 2010, the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, wrote to HMCI Christine Gilbert setting out his intention to refocus school inspections on four themes: — The quality of teaching. — The effectiveness of leadership. — Pupil behaviour and safety. — Pupils’ achievement. 23. The GTCE supports the Coalition government’s view that the public interest in schools would be better served by inspections that focused on fewer, enduring characteristics of school ‘health’. Where accountability is over-complicated there is a risk that the focus on the things that really matter is diluted. Furthermore, a regime focused too closely on contemporary government initiatives runs the risk of appearing less than independent. 24. Inspection should focus on what all schools need to do well, and what else they do should depend less on micro management from the centre and more on the priorities of legitimate stakeholders locally. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w196 Education Committee: Evidence

25. It is possible that there might be a high degree of consensus about what these characteristics might be. There are strong similarities between the Secretary of State’s framework, above, and what the GTCE offers for consideration, on the strength of its work with parents, children and teachers about their expectations of schools and teachers: — What is the quality of teaching and learning in the school? — Are all pupils being supported to progress and achieve, in their academic and wider development? — Are all pupils safe, happy and engaged in school? — What is the quality of leadership and management in the school? — Are pupils, parents and other stakeholders appropriately involved in and consulted by the school? 26. References to all pupils are intended to continue what the GTCE believes has been a morally important emphasis on schools helping all to succeed. The new Equalities Act underlines the responsibility of public bodies like the Department for Education and the GTCE to promote greater equity in the frameworks we shape in which public services are delivered. 27. The GTCE continues to believe schools have a responsibility for pupils’ well-being. The Code of Conduct for teaching captures this responsibility because extensive consultation with parents and other stakeholders confirms that this is a firm societal expectation of teachers and schools. This is not to imply that schools should be held solely responsible for well being, or to support the burdensome means by which schools are sometimes held to account for wider outcomes. At a time of far-reaching cuts in children’s services it is more important than ever that schools, as a universal service, understand and meet their contribution to children’s well-being, not least because the capacity of other, targeted services will be diminished. 28. The GTCE also places emphasis on the stake in the school held by legitimate stakeholders in its work, foremost among which are pupils and parents. The GTC’s work on the future of accountability concludes that strong accountability to the centre has diminished the accountability of schools to local stakeholders—those to whom teachers rightly feel most responsible. The Coalition government has taken one route to addressing this deficit—free schools. The GTCE will propose that all schools might improve their accountability to pupils, parents and others if the onus of central or national accountability was reduced where schools were demonstrably in good health.

A Single Inspectorate for All Children’s Settings and Services 29. It is essential that inspection teams have the credibility and expertise to make judgements about practice in each setting, whether there is a single or multiple inspectorates. If there continues to be a single inspectorate for children’s services, there are potential beneﬁts to be realised, including: — Streamlining inspection of multi-disciplinary settings such as schools that are also children’s centres. — Having the capacity to make judgements about services as they are experienced by children and families, e.g. the quality of co-ordination between services. — The potential to undertake thematic reviews across disciplines on topics such as the quality of consultation with children. — The opportunity to spread best practice or innovation across settings on topics such as successful engagement of excluded families. 30. It may be that while Ofsted has been absorbing and streamlining substantial areas of work, some of these beneﬁts have not yet been fully exploited. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by NASUWT The NASUWT’s submission sets out the Union’s views on the key issues identiﬁed by the Committee in the terms of reference for the Inquiry and is based upon the work of its representative committees and other structures made up of practicing teachers and lecturers working in the sectors within Ofsted’s statutory remit. The NASUWT is the largest union representing teachers and headteachers in the UK, with over 280,000 serving teacher and school leader members.

Executive Summary — The education system should be subject to an appropriate, constructive and proportionate system of public accountability, a key element of which must include an effectively resourced, professionally staffed inspectorate located ﬁrmly within the public sector. — Aspects of the inspection of schools in England have led to signiﬁcant problems in terms of the impact of inspection on the ability of schools to raise standards and support and enhance the wider wellbeing of children and young people. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w197

— In practice, the inspection framework has had a significant and adverse impact on the workload of teachers and headteachers and on levels of organisational bureaucracy. — The inspection framework is focused to an excessive extent on the identification of perceived “failure” to the detriment of the critical role to be played by inspection in supporting schools in their work to raise standards and contribute to the wellbeing of all children and young people. — The operation of the inspection has framework has acted to constrain the breadth and balance of the learning experiences that schools can offer their pupils. — The focus on outcomes for pupils as part of the inspection process is driven to a disproportionate extent by pupil performance data and underplays significantly the wider contribution the schools make to pupils’ development, progress and wellbeing. — However, diminishing or undermining the role of inspectorates and of the work they undertake would represent a seriously misguided response to these concerns. — In principle, there are good reasons for the existence of a single inspectorate for children’s services and learning but its ability to operate effectively is dependant on significant reform to the basis upon which inspection is conducted. — There are profound contradictions in the Government’s proposals to give schools greater apparent autonomy and its views on the principles upon which systems of school accountability including inspection should be established.

Background and Context 1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee Inquiry into School Accountability. The range of issues highlighted in the terms of reference of the Inquiry are wide ranging and merit extended further discussion and consideration. However, within the conﬁnes of the 3,000 word limit for submissions, the Union can only provide a brief overview of its views on the key areas of concern highlighted by the Committee.

The Purposes of Inspection 2. The NASUWT’s assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the work of Ofsted is based on the belief that the inspection of schools must: — place a minimal burden on schools; — not lead to excessive workload for teachers and headteachers or increase bureaucratic burdens in schools; — not require schools to undertake any special preparation for inspection; — make use of the wealth of data that is already available and not require schools to prepare or collate data for the sole purpose of inspection; — shift from being a punitive inspection regime to one that is supportive and focuses on helping schools to improve; — focus on the school’s management arrangements and processes, and their outcomes for pupils and staff in terms of efficiency, equity and effectiveness; — not duplicate other systems of monitoring, performance management and support; — operate in unity with other systems of audit, performance management, advice and support, including that which is carried out by HMIs and local authorities; and — provide judgements that are fair and in which the profession and the public can have confidence. 3. The NASUWT is clear that in many important respects, these principles have not been reflected in the series of frameworks within which inspection in England has been undertaken to date. The most important implications of these deficiencies in the context of the remit for the Committee’s Inquiry are set out in more detail below. 4. However, it is important to be clear at the outset that while legitimate concerns can be identified about the inspection process in terms of its impact upon staff and learners, diminishing or undermining the role of inspectorates and the work they undertake would represent a seriously misguided response. The NASUWT maintains that as a publicly-funded universal service, the education system should be subject to an appropriate, constructive and proportionate system of public accountability, a key element of which must include an effectively resourced, professionally staffed inspectorate located firmly within the public sector. 5. In the context of the significant cuts to education-related public expenditure planned by the Government, the Union is concerned that well-founded concerns about the inspection system could be used as a pretext for significant reductions in the resources available for the inspection of schools. The effect of this would be to limit the potential of inspection to act as a means of securing sustained system-wide improvement and would lead inevitably to pressures to privatise key aspects of the inspection process in an attempt to drive down costs, thereby undermining its quality still further. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w198 Education Committee: Evidence

6. Instead, the NASUWT calls for an approach to reform of inspection that seeks to establish a system based on the key principles set out above, to reshape the role of Ofsted to allow its work to reflect these principles and to ensure that it has the resources, staff and support from Government it requires to contribute to supporting and sustaining improvement. 7. Concerns about future approaches to inspection have been heightened by the stated intention of the Government to scale back Ofsted’s operations and to limit its principal focus to schools that are “faltering or coasting”177. This view reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of inspection, given its conceptualisation of inspection as a punitive process, to be deployed only in circumstances where schools are perceived as “failing”. While it is clear that schools facing challenging or difficult circumstances will always need additional support, an inspection system established on the basis of the principles set out by the NASUWT should be seen a process from all schools can and should benefit.

The Impact of the Inspection Process on School Improvement 8. In many important respects, the inspection frameworks within which Ofsted has operated have led to significant problems in terms of the impact of inspection on the ability of schools to raise standards and support and enhance the wider wellbeing of children and young people. 9. A particular concern in this context relates to impact of inspection on teachers’ and headteachers’ workload and on levels of organisational bureaucracy. The findings of the Union’s audit of the workload of teachers and headteachers in England and Wales, published in March 2008, provide clear evidence of this consequence of the current inspection framework. The audit surveyed the views of teachers and headteachers and received over 16,500 responses and found that, in relation to views about the factors responsible for excessive workload, the demands associated with inspection were ranked third, ahead of factors such as meetings, coursework annotation and target setting. While much of this additional workload and bureaucracy has been related directly to the process of generating evidence to support schools’ self-evaluation, the NASUWT believes that rather than reducing bureaucracy, the decision of the Government to abolish the self-evaluation form (SEF) risks increasing workload further by removing the set template within which the outcomes of self evaluation can be recorded. 10. There is a clear link between the high-stakes context within which inspection takes place and the workload and bureaucracy-related problems inspection generates. The grading of schools in the inspection system leads to their categorisation as failing or succeeding institutions with severe consequences, such as special measures and potential closures, for those identified as ineffective. Often, schools do not receive the appropriate, timely and non-judgemental support that they need to take forward school improvement strategies. This emphasis on the identification of failure and the high-stakes consequences incurred discourage collaborative forms of working and the formation of effective partnerships between schools and teachers. 11. The operation of the Ofsted inspection framework has also had a significant impact on pupils’ learning experiences. There is considerable evidence to confirm that the current inspection arrangements are focused almost exclusively on the nature and operation of school processes. Many schools have reported that they lack the confidence and are unwilling to develop alternative approaches to teaching and learning for fear of receiving a negative inspection judgement or because there is no discernable recognition from Ofsted for doing so. This has significant implications for schools seeking to broaden the range and nature of pupils’ learning experiences.

The Performance of Ofsted in Carrying Out its Work and the Consistency and Quality of Inspection Teams in the Ofsted InspectionProcess 12. In considering the performance of Ofsted in carrying out its functions. It is important to draw a clear distinction between concerns that have arisen in relation to the framework for inspection within which Ofsted is required to operate and the capability and conduct of inspectors. Although inspectors may work in a highly professional manner, the positive impact of their activities for individual settings and the system as a whole can be constrained by shortcomings in the inspection framework. 13. The NASUWT remains concerned that in too many instances, it is clear that inspectors’ knowledge, experience and understanding of key elements of the areas they are seeking to inspect are inadequate or insufficiently up to date. These issues are often associated particularly with the use of externally contracted inspectors. Despite recent increases in the use of directly employed Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) in the inspection process, the use of contracted inspectors is still widespread. Therefore, if inspection findings are to have the highest positive level of credibility, the current system of contracting inspectors through private companies must be reformed. The concerns set out above in respect of the risk of further privatisation of Ofsted’s inspection functions are especially significant in terms of safeguarding future inspection quality. 14. Similar issues can be identified in respect of Ofsted’s monitoring of the quality of inspection which is inadequate. Given the significant emphasis in the current inspection framework on the judgements of individual inspectors, more effective monitoring of inspection quality is critical to securing improvement within the system. It is essential that Ofsted is given the means to ensure that every inspector and inspection should be 177 Department for Education (17 June 2010), Michael Gove to the National College Annual Conference, Birmingham, (http://www.education.gov.uk/news/speeches/nationalcollegeannualconference) retrieved on 22/9/10. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w199

monitored from start to finish. Further reductions in the resources available to Ofsted would undermine still further its ability to evaluate its work effectively. 15. In relation to the management of complaints by Ofsted, the current procedure is heavily weighted towards the judgement of the inspector and it is not acceptable that there is no effective appeals process to challenge an inspection judgement that relates to standards. The current system makes it extremely difficult for individual members of staff to pursue complaints about an inspection and the timescale for making complaints is too rigid and excludes cases where it has taken time for the full evidence to become available. 16. For all inspectors, effective training and development remain key concerns. It is for this reason that the NASUWT remains concerned that the nature, scope and quality of Ofsted’s training programmes are not open to independent scrutiny. Without any meaningful assessment of the fitness for purpose of Ofsted’s provision of training and development for inspectors, confidence among members of the school workforce, parents and the public more generally in the ability of inspectors to undertake their wide-ranging and complex responsibilities will be compromised to an unacceptable extent.

The Weight Given to Different Factors in the Inspection Process 17. The Union is concerned that the focus on outcomes for pupils as part of the inspection process is driven to a disproportionate extent by pupil performance data. Whilst it is quite right that inspection focuses on standards and pupils’ progress, an overemphasis on data risks distorting inspection judgements. The nature of this overemphasis on data in the inspection process can result in inspection overlooking a school’s achievements and effectiveness in, for example, engaging disaffected young people in education. The primacy of pupil performance data in the current framework is highlighted by the fact that pupil achievement is a “limiting judgement”; regardless of the success of schools in all other areas of their work, where pupil achievement is judged to be less than outstanding or good, schools cannot be rated as higher than satisfactory overall. 18. Notwithstanding the core role of schools to help pupils make the best possible rates of educational progress and achievement, this feature of the current framework denies that schools have a key part to play, in collaboration with well resourced and supported wider children’s services, in contributing to the development of all aspects of lives of children and young people. 19. For these reasons, the NASUWT took the view that the School Report Card proposed by the previous Government had the potential to recast positively the ways in which the school accountability system, including the inspection of schools, recognises and evaluates the wide range of work undertaken by staff in schools. 20. The School Report Card was being developed in way that reﬂected a broader vision of the work of schools and work was well advanced in identifying indicators of school performance and activity that would more accurately describe the contribution made by schools to the wider progress and achievement of children and young people. A key element of this work was to ascribe relative weightings to different indicators of performance based on judgments of the relative importance of different aspects of the work that staff in schools undertake with pupils and the outcomes for children and young people for which members of the school workforce, including teachers and headteachers, can reasonably be expected to take some degree of responsibility. It is therefore regrettable that the current Government has decided to discontinue work to develop the revised approach to school accountability that the School Report Card represented. 21. The NASUWT is clear that the intention of the Secretary of State to focus the inspection process to an even greater extent on a narrow range of performance criteria than is the case currently178, threatens to increase further the inconsistencies between the ways in which staff in schools support the wider development of children and young people and the capacity of the inspection system to capture and reﬂect the full extent of this work.

TheInspection ofAllOrganisations,Settings andServices toSupportChildren’sLearning andWelfare by a Single Inspectorate 22. The NASUWT supported the principle of reforming Ofsted as a single inspectorate for children’s services and learning and recognised that the challenges involved in managing the overlapping responsibilities of previous inspectorates in a broader policy context with significantly greater emphasis on joint working between services for children provided a reasonable basis for the establishment of a single inspectorate. Nevertheless, this support was conditional upon significant and sustained reform of the frameworks within which Ofsted operates. In the absence of this reform, the expansion of Ofsted’s remit has been undertaken on the basis of an unreconstructed model of inspection and has, to some extent, been problematic in terms of the ability of the organisation to manage its wide ranging remit. 23. This has led to concerns that the scope of Ofsted’s responsibilities is now so broad that its ability to play an informed, balanced and constructive role in sustaining improvements in the quality of the services it inspects, including state-funded education, has been compromised. In relation to schools, particular concerns can be identified in respect of the declining ability of Ofsted to gather meaningful and robust evidence of practice additional to that gathered from routine school inspection to produce effective sectoral or systemic reports 178 Ibid. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w200 Education Committee: Evidence

which have been valued by educational professionals in terms of the contribution they made previously to supporting the development of policy and practice. 24. However, reform of the basis upon which inspection is undertaken across the children’s services sector, combined with adequate resourcing of the inspection system by central Government, could create the circumstances within which inspection of distinct sectors could be undertaken by a single inspectorate in a way that allows for effective account to be taken of the connections between these services and the ways in which they should collaborate to meet the children and young people’s needs. The coherence and economies of scale that a single inspectorate can provide in comparison with a wider range of smaller distinct inspectorates is a clear potential advantage of an inspection system constituted on this basis.

The Role of Ofsted in Providing an Accountability Mechanism for Schools Operating with Greater Autonomy 25. The NASUWT recognises that this aspect of the Inquiry reflects the determination of the Government to increase significantly the number of state-funded schools operating outside the maintained sector, either as academies or so-called “free schools”, as well as the commitment set out in the Coalition Agreement to give all schools “greater freedom” over the curriculum and other key areas of schools activity related to the progress and achievement of pupils. 26. Although it is not possible at this stage to state with any complete degree of confidence the exact nature of the extent of autonomy in these respects the Government intends to grant to schools, this aspect of the Inquiry calls into question key principles upon which important aspects of the Government’s policies in relation to schools and the ways in which they should be held to account appear to be based. 27. The NASUWT maintains that a hallmark of an effective and equitable education system is that all children and young people, regardless of where they live, are able to access a local school that secures their common entitlement to a high quality, relevant and engaging education. In light of their identity in this context as public institutions providing universal services, it is right that schools are held to effective public account for their performance through a common school accountability framework which works to secure consistency of quality and educational experience throughout the system as a whole. Data from recent research commissioned by the NASUWT and UNISON confirms that this view of the state education system and the need for it to be held accountable to secure consistency of standards is shared by the majority of the public.179 28. This coherent view of the relationship between the state education system and the role of mechanisms for holding schools to account, including school inspection, contrasts markedly with the tensions inherent in the approach adopted by the Government. The Government’s view involves an assertion that schools should be a given greater degree of organisational freedom over key aspects of their practice but also maintains correctly that there should be a common system of school accountability. However, given that the Government remains committed to deepening the high stakes nature of school accountability and school inspection still further through a greater focus on the identification of perceived “failure”, it is not clear how, in practice, schools will be able to operate in a more autonomous manner given that they will need to ensure that their policy and practice is consistent with that demanded by the school accountability regime the Government intends to establish. 29. This contradiction at the heart of Government’s education policy suggests that it is underpinned by a lack of clear thinking about the implications of its approach to school structures and their relationship with the school accountability system. In relation to the future work of Ofsted, it is important that the Committee examines critically the rationale underpinning the Government’s policies in this critical area and considers the extent to which the Government’s policies on school accountability and school autonomy, particularly in relation to the expansion in the academies programme and the creation of free schools, form a consistent and credible basis for the future development of policy in these important areas. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services The Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ltd (ADCS) is pleased to submit this brief written evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee. This submission does not address every aspect of the Inquiry’s terms of reference. It focuses principally on the inspection of local authority children’s services. ADCS is the national leadership organisation in England for directors of children’s services appointed under the provisions of the Children Act 2004 and for other children’s services professional in leadership roles. The Association provides a national voice as a champion for children, with local and central government, and with the public. In summary, we would make the following points: 179 Ipsos MORI (2010), Who Should Run Our Schools? A survey of Public Opinion, NASUWT/UNISON, (www.nasuwt.org.uk/ research), retrieved on 23/09/10. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w201

— Inspection is a vital part of ensuring public accountability and the continuous improvement of children’s services. — There is potential for signiﬁcantly reducing the costs associated with inspection activity without reducing the value of inspection in providing this accountability and improvement. — These reductions in cost can be achieved through: — a signiﬁcant reduction in the bureaucracy associated with inspection and improvement; and — ensuring inspection is proportionate and risk based. — Overall, inspection and improvement should involve less activity for both the inspectorate and the services being inspected.

1. Introduction 1.1 The relationship between inspection and improvement It is vitally important that the quality of public services for the most vulnerable is inspected; inspection is an important part of the public accountability framework. Inspectorates and those charged with delivering services have a shared interest in making a difference to service users by striving to identify and make the improvements that are necessary in order to continuously improve the positive impact that those services achieve. This must especially apply to the protection of society’s most vulnerable children and young people. Continuous improvement must be a shared endeavour between Regulators and those charged with delivering services. Any inspectorate must work closely together with the sector it inspects and must itself be willing to learn, adapt and play an appropriate part in improving public services. Open and regular dialogue between inspectorate and the sector is essential.

1.2 The purpose of inspection We believe ﬁrmly that a single inspectorate should conduct inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare. It is important that inspection recognises service failings; it is particularly important that inspection is able to identify children and young people who are unsafe or at risk, be that a safeguarding or an attainment risk, or that a young person is at risk of becoming NEET for example. Detecting and preventing service failings can be carried out through the use of risk analysis of publicly available information. We need a system that improves services, works in an integrated way and allows our very best practitioners to inﬂuence the development of models of quality. Inspection should be a formative not a punitive process. The current frameworks under which local authority children’s services are inspected do very little to ensure that service leaders are managing for improvement, rather the reverse is more frequently the case that service leaders are managing for the inspection itself. Indeed an industry has grown up around the preparation for announced inspection. This is because the consequence of a poor service inspection outcome on the overall annual rating of a children’s services department is serious indeed. The perceived punitive effects and the impact of judgements on services in terms of the local (and national) media and political response have created the climate whereby the inspected manage for inspection rather than managing for quality and continuous improvement of services for children and young people. ADCS advocates a new approach to the inspection of local authority children’s services. We need a framework that supports continuous improvement and is proportionate to risk, with targeted sector-led improvement support. Alongside this there would be an attendant reduction in the burden of performance monitoring and inspection by central government and inspectorates. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy is crucial, indeed if admissions and exclusions are to be the responsibility of individual schools rather than the local authority, there is an even greater need for accountability particularly with regard to excluded and off- roll pupils who are particularly vulnerable.

2. Local Authority Children’s Services 2.1 Unannounced inspections of safeguarding services The principle of unannounced inspection is right and drives improvement without the excessive preparation for announced inspections. Such inspection should remain short, sharp and focussed, although the current focus of unannounced inspection of contact and referral centres (front door duty rooms) could helpfully be broadened to include other aspects of safeguarding and child protection services.

2.2 The annual rating of Local Authority Children’s Services A wide range of organisations, settings and services are inspected in order to give local authority children’s services departments a graded annual performance rating, including a number of settings over which the LA has no control eg child minding services provided by sole child minders, academy results etc. There is a cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w202 Education Committee: Evidence

mismatch between the organisations that contribute to the annual assessment rating and the powers and levers that local authorities have to improve those establishments—for example, inspection results for private child minders and academies contribute to the annual rating but local authorities do not have levers to drive improvement or, in the case of childminders, to prevent poor providers from continuing to offer registered child care. In addition, as more schools become autonomous, less information and data and ‘soft intelligence’ is available to the local authority, removing the current “early warning signals”.

Dropping the requirement to undertake an annual rating would signiﬁcantly reduce the volume, burden and cost of inspection. The current four-point graded annual performance rating is a simplistic, unsophisticated approach to describing the extremely wide-ranging and complex services that are the responsibility of the DCS. We believe that the publication of this data by each local authority would provide accountability to the public and allow for risk based inspection based on identiﬁed triggers—such as a decline in attainment. This could be accompanied by a local authority’s self-assessment report on its progress where this already exists.

A more proportionate risk-based approach to inspection would focus attention on improvement. Local authorities that have evidenced an improvement trend need not be inspected routinely unless there are concerns, for which a series of triggers exist. Sampling could also take place.

3. School Inspection

3.1 The impact of the inspection process on school improvement

Inspection should comment on all major aspects of the work of schools/settings which contribute to the all- round development of children and young people. If something is not inspected, schools will tend to give those important aspects less attention. Inspection should continue to provide clear pointers for development.

The more rigorous Framework put in place since September 2009 has helped raise standards in schools.

Ofsted’s role as a moderator of school self-evaluation has been a good development. The Evaluation Schedule provides clear guidance on achieving the highest quality in different areas and acts as a means by which schools can self-evaluate rigorously and accurately by using the grade descriptors to judge their performance. The descriptors enable school leaders to hold staff and themselves to account. They also help governing bodies to have some kind of benchmark through which they can monitor school progress. The clarity of the guidance supports objectivity. Overall, the process supports schools in building their own capacity for improvement.

Any longer than three years between visits is too long, even for outstanding schools. Outstanding schools need regular monitoring. Just because they have been judged as outstanding in one inspection, it doesn’t follow that the level of performance will be maintained.

The current emphasis on judging EYFS and post-16 provision as separate aspects has been helpful.

The short notice before an inspection is appropriate. The possibility of revisiting satisfactory schools a year later helps accelerate the rate of progress by providing a sense of urgency.

3.2 The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work and the consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process of schools

Schools report generally that they are satisﬁed with the inspection process. Where there is dissatisfaction it is usually because the attitude or approach of the lead inspector has been unhelpful. Usually the quality of inspection teams is very high.

Because inspectors are observing a large number of lessons during the process, judgements on the quality of teaching and learning tend to be accurate.

3.3 The weight given to different factors within the inspection process

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process seems to have helped schools focus on improving outcomes for all learners. The speciﬁc focus on the attainment and progress of pupils with SEN/ LDD has also been helpful. We are concerned that schools will no longer be accountable for their contribution to the well-being of pupils and would advocate that schools are accountable through the inspection process or otherwise for the way in which the pupil premium, once it is introduced, is used to improve the attainment of the most vulnerable pupils. October 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w203

Memorandum submitted by Oxfordshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council is pleased to submit this written evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee. This submission focuses on both the inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services and the inspection of Local Authority Schools and Early Years Setting. It is vital that the quality of our services is inspected, as part of the public accountability framework. Professional dialogue and challenge between regulators and those delivering services is important as part of a process of continuous improvement. The system must aid the improvement of services and allows for opportunities for development in an informative and not punitive fashion. The current framework for local authority inspection does not support this line of argument. There is a danger of managing for inspection rather than managing for improvement, although this can be helpful as part of a self evaluation process. The principle of unannounced inspections is better and such inspections should remain short, sharp and focussed but broadened beyond the current focus to include other aspects of local authority services for vulnerable children. Inspection should continue to recognise service failings particularly when this could result in a child being put at risk. Currently the local authority is judged on a wide range of services and settings over which it has little or no control as more and more schools become autonomous less information will become available to the local authority and thereby removing any opportunity to inﬂuence improvement. Inspection should be an integral part of the improvement journey as currently framed it does not, a more risk based approach would allow for greater attention to improvement. A single organisation should conduct all inspections of organisations schools and settings and services supporting children, however, there should not be “routine inspections” but risk based inspections where there are concerns, with an agreed set of triggers and the opportunity for sampling. In considering the scope of new arrangements it may be that each school essentially commissions this service from a provider, there could be arrangements to nationally commission the service either through Ofsted or an alternative provider through contract.

Original Questions from Select Committee What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit). An inspections purpose should be to hold organisations, schools and others to account for their performance in all matters relating to children’s services. There should be a clear role in identifying minimum standards and ensuring these are met by organisations via the inspection programme. Ofsted is a key partner in the determination of standards working in partnership with local and national government. As part of this accountability, the inspection should ensure that professional standards are met and at acceptable levels.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement: Inspection of schools and other settings should comment on all major aspects of the work of schools/settings which contribute to the all round development of the children in their care. The inspection should provide a nationally indexed report which can be used as a tool for further improvement rather than a “punitive” document. The current differentiated approach to inspections is welcomed. For those schools who were judged as satisfactory inspection should take place within at least a three year period, even though a school has been judged outstanding things can change rapidly and annual desk top monitoring is essential. Short notice before inspection is supported as is the current emphasis on judging EYFS and post-16 provision separately. Continuity of the linked inspector would potentially enhance this model.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work. A comprehensive inspection framework, together with ongoing dialogue and opportunity for challenge, has on the whole ensured a consistency of operation and strong professional performance between Ofsted and the local authority. The current role and performance of Ofsted is viewed as detailed and considered; there is good use of triangulation in forming judgements. Sound use of evidence to back up these judgements and all based on clear and detailed criteria within the published framework. The process is clearly explained in advance, at the start and during the inspection periods. Professional dialogue is central to the process and the resultant reports are normally clear and considered with good linkage to reasons behind the conclusion. However there have been occasions when institutional inspection and the performance of the individual team has been a concern to the school or setting concerned and the local authority. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w204 Education Committee: Evidence

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. The experience of our schools and settings has shown that this can still be variable with some teams more effective than others with some lead inspectors not working to the same criteria for evidence and having different levels of regard to schools’ individual circumstances. Not all inspectors are sufﬁciently aware of the EYFS and EYFSP. For instance: on occasions, demands are made by inspectors about data for very young children that is not appropriate. Sometimes the outcome of an inspection of a school or setting is at odds with local authority intelligence and monitoring and therefore can be counter-productive to help local authority teams raise standards

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process. These are well thought through and in the round are very positive. There is clarity/ transparency to the methodology and pathway that Ofsted has used to get to the weighting and these have been as a result of detailed consultations with the public sector professionals. However, less focus on “subjects” in inspection in schools has meant less feedback to individual teachers especially in secondary schools. Teachers and middle leaders have missed this development opportunity. The reliance on data to provide the hypothesis for inspection has grown over time. This may be partly due to the fact that the data is more reliable, but also reflects the short time which the Lead Inspector has to review evidence before inspection period. The use of limiting factors has increased the influence of some sections and fear is that this prevents the full picture of progress and improvement to be represented in the report. This can lead to a situation post-inspection where local priorities have been deflected from the key issues.

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate. We firmly support the view that there should continue to be a single inspectorate for children’s services, there is no merit in fragmentation. Children’s lives in school are positively or negatively influenced by their social and familial environment outside of school. Community and social services are therefore important to the attainment of children in school. With one inspection body, it ensures that there is co-ordination in the demands and expectations placed on an organisation. If different bodies are involved with inspecting aspects then there could be conflicting outcomes and it could increase bureaucracy rather than reducing it.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy. It is clear that there is a need for external inspection and validation of schools and settings. If Ofsted is not fulfilling that role and the local authority is not given a role then the mechanism to respond to a market that is not sufficiently self regulating or where market failure occurs will need to be made clear. As schools move towards greater autonomy this role becomes even more important. There are strong reasons to maintain a form of direct inspection and not rely just on data, as the whole work of the school, and its local situation needs to be understood if the story behind the figures is to be recognised and evaluated. As schools work more collaboratively together, there is a necessity to ensure the inspection regime takes into account schools, settings and partnerships working together, so a single inspection rather than individual inspection per establishment could be explored that reflects the totality of the work. If responsibility for standards is transferred to other “successful”schools in the locality then this could impact on the ability and capacity of the leadership team to maintain an improving quality in their own school. An alternative could be full time HMI, as prior to Ofsted, with a leaner model of inspection and an approach that has a greater focus on informing policy. The current arrangements mean that Ofsted report against established criteria and are unable to lead and influence policy. An HMI led system would not provide blanket coverage but would be a “snapshot” of schools. Another alternative would be to strengthen the role of the local authority. Providing the local authority with the capacity and duty to inspect its own schools to a national framework, with HMI quality assuring the process by reading a sample of reports, and joining a small number of inspections. HMI could draw up the timetable for inspection so that rigour is maintained. Desk top assessments could still be made by a national body and used to inform the local authorities’ programme of inspection. This would be a nationally directed but locally delivered model. It is important that the effect of any efficiency savings on the local authority’s ability to continue to support school improvement are understood by the Select Committee—particularly if Ofsted’s role is to be reduced. If schools are also to find their budgets reduced, then they are less likely to buy in services on a voluntary basis. Some system of accountability is essential—the local authority might be best placed to provide this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:34] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w205

Current indications are that the local authority’s capacity to continue to have a positive inﬂuence on school improvement will be severely diminished. There are strong examples of local authority success with schools over the past couple of years and reduction in capacity may bring about more issues for schools and settings. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Children’s Food Campaign

Introduction 1. The Children’s Food Campaign aims to improve young people’s health and well-being through better food—and food teaching—in schools and by protecting children from junk food marketing. We are supported by over 150 national organisations and co-ordinated by Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming (for more information see www.childrensfoodcampaign.org.uk).

2. As our expertise is in the area of food, we limit the content of this submission to this issue. We would be pleased to provide further written or oral evidence to the Committee on this issue.

The Importance of Good Food and Food Education in Schools 3. Many children in the UK have poor diets, with the National Diet and Nutrition Survey showing that 92% of children consume more saturated fat than is recommended, 86% consume too much sugar, 72% consume too much salt and 96% do not get enough fruit and vegetables.180 Diets tend to be particularly poor amongst children from low income households.181 Therefore the food, and information about food, that children are provided at school has a key role to play in shaping their present and future diet, and in turn their behaviour and health.182

4. There is also evidence that as well as promoting physical health, a balanced diet contributes to children’s mental health and well-being, with resultant impacts on children’s behaviour and ability to take advantage of the educational opportunities available to them. Conversely, a diet inadequate in quality or quantity can negatively impact upon children’s ability to learn.183

5. Having the skills to identify what foods constitute a healthy diet and how to prepare them is a key way in which people can improve their diet and health. Yet research suggests that many people in the UK lack such skills.184 It is therefore vital that children are taught these skills at school. The introduction of compulsory practical cooking lessons for all Key Stage 3 pupils goes some way to addressing this, but there is a need for pupils to develop a greater understanding of where their food comes from and how it is produced. Food growing activities can make a considerable contribution to this, with some evidence suggesting that environmental concerns resonate more with young people than health messages; food growing engages pupils on the former while supporting the latter.185

The Role of Ofsted in Promoting Good Food Culture in Schools 6. We welcome Ofsted’s recent report on Food in Schools, which provided valuable and detailed evidence about the implementation of improvements in food and food teaching in 39 schools.186 However, this work is not comprehensive, failing to include the other 22,000 state schools in England.187 180 National Statistics (2000) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: young people aged 4 to 18 years. Newport: Office of National Statistics. 181 Craig, G, Dowler, E (1997) Let them eat cake! Poverty, hunger and the UK state, in Riches, G., ed. (1997) First World Hunger. London: Macmillan; Dowler, E, Turner, S, Dobson, B, (2001) Poverty Bites: food, health and poor families. London: Child Poverty Action Group; Dowler, E. (2008) Policy initiatives to address low-income households’ nutritional needs in the UK. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2008), 67, pp 289–300; Nelson, M, Erens, B, Bates, B, Church, S, Boshier, T (2007) Low income diet and nutrition survey. Norwich: The Stationery Office. 182 School Meals Review Panel (2005) Turning the tables: transforming school food. Sheffield: School Food Trust. 183 Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum (2008) Links between diet and behaviour. The influence of nutrition on mental health. London: Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum; Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum (2008) Links between diet and behaviour. The influence of nutrition on mental health. London: Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum; Colquhoun, D, Wright, N, Pike, J, Gatenby, L (2008) Evaluation of Eat Well Do Well: Kingston upon Hull’s School Meal Initiative. Hull: Centre for Educational Studies; Kuo, F E (2006) Horticulture, wellbeing and mental health: from intuitions to evidence, ISHS Acta Horticulturae 639: XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality; Mental Health Foundation (2005) Feeding minds. The impact of food on mental health. London: Mental Health Foundation; School Food Trust (2007) School lunch and behaviour: systematic observation of classroom behaviour following a school dining room intervention. Sheffield: School Food Trust; School Food Trust (2009) School lunch and learning behaviour in primary schools: an intervention study. Sheffield: School Food Trust; School Food Trust (2009) School lunch and learning behaviour in secondary schools: an intervention study. Sheffield: School Food Trust; Van de Weyer, C (2005) Changing diets, changing minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour. London: Sustain. 184 Blythman, J (2006) Bad Food Britain. How a nation ruined its appetite. London: Fourth Estate. 185 Food for Life Partnership (2008) Six steps to transform school food culture. Bristol: Soil Association. 186 Ofsted (2010) Food in schools. Progress in implementing the new school food standards. Manchester: Ofsted. 187 Department of Children, Schools and Farming (2009) Schools, pupils, and their characteristics, January 2009. London: DCSF. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w206 Education Committee: Evidence

7. We are concerned that currently, Ofsted inspection criteria are inadequate to enable the routine inspection of the quality of food on offer in schools in order to assess whether or not meals meet the nutritional standards which they are legally obliged to meet. Similarly, the current criteria fail to monitor the extent to which schools promote their lunch service. Promotion is vital in order to increase the take-up of school meals, allowing the school meal service to become economically viable, and reducing reliance on government subsidy. 8. We are further concerned that the recent announcement by Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove that in future Ofsted inspections will focus only on the quality of teaching, effectiveness of leadership, pupil behaviour and safety and achievement. In spite of the fact that the quality of food in schools can have in improving behaviour and attainment, it appears that school food will no longer be monitored. It is also unclear whether secondary schools’ compliance with their obligation to deliver practical cooking lessons will be assessed.

Evidence for the Committee We are pleased to respond to the following points: — What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 9. The Children’s Food Campaign maintains that the purpose of inspection should be to ensure that schools and other organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit are meeting minimum standards in all relevant areas of policy and legislation, and are taking steps to improve delivery beyond minimum compliance. Ofsted’s inspection criteria must therefore be broader than is implied by the recent announcement in order to ensure that standards in areas such as school meals are being met. Without Ofsted taking this role, such standards are less likely to be met, and much of the hard work which has been invested in improving the school meals service and increasing take-up risks being reversed. 10. With reference to early years settings in particular, we note that recent research by LACORS (now Local Government Regulation) suggests that, despite the best of intentions by staff, the food provided in early years settings does not always meet the nutritional needs of children in their care.188 This is supported by an earlier investigation into the food served in nurseries, which found great variability in the food served in early years settings, with foods that are restricted or banned in schools being regularly served in some nurseries.189 Under the auspices of the School Food Trust, an Advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition in Early Years has been set up to make recommendations on guidance and/or standards for the provision of food in early years settings, and is due to report shortly. Experience of efforts to improve school food demonstrates that regulation is necessary to ensure that all children get the best nutrition outcomes within the diverse early years sector. As for schools, compliance should be monitored by Ofsted. — The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 11. As explained above, it is important that schools have a clear incentive to ensure that the school food nutritional standards are met and that the school meal service is promoted in order to continue the increase in school meal take-up which will enable the school meal service to become economically viable without long term government support. The inclusion of such criteria in the Ofsted inspection process would ensure that this incentive is maintained at a minimal cost. — The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 12. The Children’s Food Campaign recognises the government’s desire to reduce bureaucracy and focus on key areas. However, we are concerned that in doing so, other important areas such as food will be neglected, with the result that schools will lack an incentive to improve or maintain the quality of the food served and that in some schools this will lead to a decline in standards, with a negative impact on pupil health and well-being. — Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 13. We recommend that Ofsted’s inspection criteria should be extended to cover all the potential benefits good food can bring. The inspection of school food should remain within the responsibility of a main schools’ inspectorate, however, as the influence of good food and food culture extends to every facet of school life. — The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 14. Given the importance of school food in influencing children’s food preferences and eating habits, we believe that mechanisms to ensure that school food meets the nutritional standards are necessary for all schools, including “Outstanding” schools, which may be granted less frequent inspections. 15. We are disappointed that the new academies and “free schools” will not be required to meet the school food standards, and strongly recommend that some mechanism be implemented to ensure that food standards 188 LACORS (2010) Survey of nursery school food. London: LACORS. 189 Fookes, C (2008) Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pie. Exposing the truth about nursery food. Bristol: Soil Association. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w207

in these schools are not neglected, as this would risk a return to the problems that the nutritional standards were introduced to address. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics The Institute of Physics is a scientiﬁc charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientiﬁc publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics. The Institute welcomes the opportunity to submit a response to the Select Committee on the role of Ofsted. We are doing this through the SCORE partnership. The SCORE response, which has also been sent in separately is attached for information.190 The response highlights our hope that improving the quality of teaching and learning across all schools is at the heart of the inspection process. This systemic improvement can be achieved through positive engagement with the schools being inspected and through the collection of data (qualitative and quantitative) to monitor the impact of national changes. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Carrie Dunne 1. If schools are to operate with greater autonomy, with an independent inspection system focused on improving schools, then the current work of Ofsted is not adequate. The changes to the structure of Ofsted, and an increasingly generalised Ofsted Framework, have allowed the inspection system to become too distracted in its use of private contractors, too wide in its range of inspection settings, too focused on compliance with central government policy and too superficial in its quality of reporting. It is essential that the role and performance of Ofsted are simplified and redefined to ensure that it is fit for purpose, stable and more sharply focused on its central function as the “Office for Standards in Education”. 2. As the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (launched in 2007), Ofsted state online that their work. ..touches the lives of millions of people in England every day. One in every three people uses the services we inspect or regulate, or the information we provide. 1 3. Such a statement immediately identifies the worrying breadth of Ofsted’s work which is described (on the same webpage) as “extensive”, spanning the “inspection and regulation of children’s services and inspection of education and skills for learners of all ages”—a system that is now very different from Ofsted’s original structure, function and purpose as the “ Office for Standards in Education” , created by the Education (Schools) Act of 1992. 4. It is worth taking the historical perspective from the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010) about Ofsted’s origins to understand these differences and to recognise Ofsted’s impact on schools and schooling. Although Alexander (2010) describes, with implied negativity, that Ofsted’s creation was a “deliberate attempt” to privatise school inspections, it was the replacement of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) that was seen, then (and now), as a major concern. (p.33) 5. Such a change from the use of HMI, who had “previously offered central government officials advice [without ‘fear or favour’] about the effects of government policy” (ibid) to Ofsted, and their large number of private contractors, was the “subject of considerable controversy” . However, since 1992 the number of private contractors has decreased dramatically (three now cover large geographical areas), HMI have been reintroduced to carry out inspections and Ofsted has expanded to include, for example, regulating Children’s Services. From my own experience, as an Ofsted inspector and as a contractor, such structural changes have had significant effects on carrying out inspections as well as producing major bureaucratic changes for managing inspections. 6. During 2001–2004, while working for an Ofsted contractor, I was part of three separate tendering processes for gaining a contract with Ofsted to inspect all school phases. On each occasion a contract was won and by 2004 our quality with Ofsted had improved and the number of inspections increased—becoming one of the largest contractors in England with 350 inspections per year. However, throughout this success, huge tensions existed—tensions associated with maintaining the highest quality for Ofsted (training inspectors, quality assuring inspectors, inspections, reports and complying absolutely with small administrative procedures) as well as making a growing and healthy profit as a private contractor. As a consequence, such tensions created a real distraction away from the work of inspection because of the need to satisfy the administrative layers within Ofsted and the managerial layers within the parent company. At times, I believe, working as a contractor 190 Not published here. See separate memorandum on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w208 Education Committee: Evidence

and employee of a private company caused unnecessary instability for inspectors, the inspection process and ultimately schools. 7. However, since 1992, not only have there been significant structural changes but also significant content changes to the Ofsted Framework. 8. The original Framework contained the following four main inspection functions (Education Act, 1992, chapter 8, section 2): — The quality of education — The educational standards achieved — The efficient management of financial resources — The spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. 9. Although these main functions continue to characterise all inspections, they have since then increased in number and broadened in their scope. For example, the functions within the current Framework, used from September 2009, now include the need to inspect “community cohesion” and “well-being” (2009a, p 4). In addition, Ofsted also state that the 2009 Framework “has the greatest impact possible on school improvement and outcomes for children and young people” 2—but, crucially, the central remit for an “Office for Standards in Education” is now difficult to identify in an increasingly “issues-led” inspection process. 10. Ofsted justify the structural and Framework changes as a direct consequence of national developments and legislative changes (Ofsted, 2009b). For example, in the latest Ofsted report for a Post16 Campus School (Appendix 1) it is very clear that “The sexual health clinic is used well” yet the reader has no idea how well students are being taught English or mathematics or whether students are reaching good enough standards. Such an issues-led process for inspection is a serious concern if parents etc. wish to understand “the quality of education” and “the educational standards achieved” . Therefore, serious questions must be raised about Ofsted’s breadth of work as well as its independence in their attention to national initiatives. 11. Ofsted maintains its independence by declaring that it provides “impartial information” to Parliament,3 however, as Alexander (2010) states, the effect of Ofsted remains a “very powerful, though indirect, way of regulating the system by ‘policing’ [schools’] compliance with national directives and severely limiting high— or even medium-risk experimentation with content or process” (p 33)—in other words, as an unintended consequence, schools have become stifled by regulation. Such strong criticism may be questioned, but the essence of this “policing” is evident within the following comments from two secondary school teachers: “I am all in favour of accountability but the modern teacher seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on justifying themselves or learning the latest Ofsted inspired teaching methods rather than simply teaching” 12. I’ve had to tolerate dozens of “Ofsted says” statements over the years. Whether true or not, teachers believe (1) You must have a starter, body and plenary to every lesson (2) You must write your objectives on the board (3) You must test your learning outcome at the end of every lesson And so on.... 13. Rather than Ofsted being independent and reliable4 in evaluating the work of schools, the teachers clearly state that there is a perceived need to comply with a set of predetermined criteria. 14. Taking mathematics as an example, these personal experiences are backed up in a study by Brown et al (1998) who questioned the extent to which the methods in the National Numeracy Strategy were based on evidence about “what works”. The study drew a conclusion that ‘many schools will adopt the Strategy] so as to avoid criticism from Ofsted inspectors and Local Education Authority (LEA) officials’ (p 366). Most worryingly, and a serious concern for the autonomy of schools, the work of local authorities to act as almost agents for the National Strategies was a recommendation by Ofsted’s own evaluation of the Primary National Strategies (2005): “ensure that [local authority] primary strategy managers have sufficient authority to exert appropriate influence (p 3) 15. With this Ofsted directive in mind, my own experience while working as a contractor with about 1000 inspectors, caused me many times to question the reality of inspector independence when many also worked in other areas of education eg as strategy managers (mentioned above), Headteachers, Local Authority inspectors (as I did myself), School Improvement Partners (SIPs) or as education consultants employed by Ofsted contractors. Without disparaging the work of many, many excellent inspectors, it is a concern that needs raising and I have much sympathy with former HMI Colin Richardson about the need to reinstate HMI as: “a stand-alone independent, publicly funded body who would report regularly to MPs and whose work would be periodically reviewed by a commission including representatives of all relevant stake-holders and drawing on the expertise of inspectors, researchers and educationists’ (Richardson, in Alexander, 2010, p 33). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w209

16. My own experience of HMI through their monitoring of inspections, inspectors and inspection reports, have found them, on the whole, to be objective and pragmatic, keeping their work focused on evaluating learning. However, for quite a number of inspectors working for contractors, I often found that their day job in advising schools became mixed with their occasional job of inspecting schools. I recall regular guidance being distributed to inspectors from Ofsted that informed them to be objective in their observation of lessons and not to advocate particular teaching methods. For example, Ofsted’s Update 38 and Update 40 (no longer available) warned inspectors that they should not expect to see “three parts” to any lesson and reminded them that the National Strategies were non-statutory (all very different from Ofsted’s own recommendations in 2005!) However, this guidance was mostly ignored as LAs were putting pressure on all schools to follow the National Strategies, and more recently Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP, 2008) to make measurements about each child’s progress based on National Curriculum level descriptions. It is not a surprise that in recent years teachers have not been able to recognise which advice or documentation are statutory and which are non- statutory—such is the fear of Ofsted and LAs. 17. Sergeant (2009) summarises her concerns about Ofsted as an inspection process that ensures each school’s compliance with the latest government initiative (p.43), which are as Alexander (2010) states “universally viewed as obligatory” (p.209)—in other words, the content and the teaching methods are accepted, without question, and enforced openly by Ofsted. This was also a similar concern raised by a House of Commons Committee (2010a) when discussing the “tick-box mentality” of inspection—the current compliance culture is a serious problem. 18. Although it is very clear from the House of Commons Select Committee transcripts (2010b) that Ofsted’s independence is essential (p.9), this independence in practice does indeed need to be questioned. The current Ofsted Evaluation Schedule (2009c) states clearly that inspectors evaluate “how well teaching promotes learning” (p.31) which appears to imply independence, but further comments from three primary school teachers based on their discussions with inspectors during inspections, would question this independence: “The inspector said my lesson wasn’t good because I didn’t have my learning objective on the board for all children to see. The inspector didn’t want to listen when I told her that the objectives came out of the lesson”. “I was told that my class shouldn’t sit in rows—they should be sitting in groups”. “I spent too long at the beginning of the lesson explaining something. She said that 10 minutes on the carpet is long enough for Y1 children”. 19. Such comments from teachers resonate with the criticisms made by Alexander (2010) about the range of “principles” of teaching which are “empirically questionable”, and “characteristics” of teaching which are “disappointingly vague” listed in various DCSF documents (p.297). In other words, inspectors appear to be drawing on a set of approved generalisations to judge and advise schools for improving teaching and (most likely) evidence of inspectors mixing their day job with their occasional inspection job. 20. This concern about approved generalisations about teaching can be found when examining the ﬁndings of a small survey using ﬁfty randomly chosen Ofsted inspection reports (November 2009). When studying the recommendations made by inspectors, the idea of “challenging pupils” as a way of improving teaching occurs in almost all of the reports without any detailed analysis of what is meant by “challenge” in the main text of the report. Inspectors would argue that the detail is given to the school during the inspection but the lack of detail in reports suggests that the reports themselves cannot be used for one of their main functions— improving schools. 21. Using mathematics as an example once more, the lack of detail to mathematics in individual school inspection reports is a serious concern. When examining a series of reports downloaded from the Ofsted website5 for any individual school, the dramatic reduction in the reporting of mathematics is clearly evident. For example, an inspection report written in 2001 or 2003 contains a number of pages with a detailed evaluation of the judgements inspectors have made about mathematics, such as the learners’ standards and their progress as well as the quality of teaching. However, an inspection report written in 2009 lacks the same detail (see tables a and b). In other words, inspection reports are not providing enough information to improve schools— the situation is no better for English!

Table A JUDGEMENTS MADE ABOUT MATHEMATICS IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR 2001 AND 2009 Standards Progress Teaching Leadership/Management

2009 KS2: above average Good No judgement No judgement 2001 KS1: average KS1: satisfactory KS1: satisfactory good KS2: average KS2: good KS2: good cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w210 Education Committee: Evidence

Table B

JUDGEMENTS MADE ABOUT MATHEMATICS IN A SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR 2003 AND 2009 Standards Progress Teaching Leadership/Management

2009 KS3: No judgement No judgement No judgement No judgement KS4:above average 2003 A level: average very good very good good Current Y13: high Further maths: high

22. It would appear from these tables that between 2001 and 2009 Ofsted inspection teams have continued to report on learners’ standards. Although, the current Ofsted framework states that one of its main functions is to improve schools through inspection (2009a, p.2), and there cannot be any disagreement with the following end note (28) from the Cabinet Ofﬁce Report (2008): ...school results and inspection reports create public pressure for improvement, and legitimacy for change when things are not good enough.

23. However, it is in the nature of gathering the evidence for judging improvement that raises further questions—the use of data, based on tests, teacher assessments, tracking documents (including the use of APP) is a further worrying and serious concern illustrated by the following quote from a secondary school teacher: “[Ofsted] base their judgements on school results, and causes the over valuation of tests.”

24. However, what is worse, is that the use of such data (based on the National Curriculum level descriptions) has been responsible for potentially putting a ceiling on learners’ achievements as illustrated in the following comment from a maths co-ordinator during an inspection in 2009: “When I had an interview with the inspector about maths he questioned why children in Y4 were doing work that children in other schools would do in Y6 in the Numeracy Strategy. He wasn’t very happy when I said it was because they could!”

25. In other words, what the inspector saw did not ﬁt with the national expectations.

26. Once again, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector warned, in her 2010 online guidance, Ofsted News6, that inspectors should not make their judgements based on an analysis of test and examination data alone. However, discussions in a House of Commons Select Committee meeting, a month later, urged Ofsted to “rebalance its inspection framework” because of the “disproportionate use” made by inspection teams of a school’s results when judging a schools’ effectiveness (2010a, p.9). Such a strong focus on results ensures that their link with Ofsted has signiﬁcantly raised the test’s and examination’s high stakes status exacerbating a fear of inspections by schools.

27. As a ﬁnal example of Ofsted’s focus on test results and data, the report of an outstanding primary school, inspected in 2009, contains two main recommendations which focus their attention even more closely on data and tracking processes which inevitably increase the level of bureaucracy for the school (see Appendix 2). In other words, as described by Pollard’s article in the Daily Telegraph (May 2010), Ofsted appears to be “just another arm of the [education] establishment” providing further evidence of each schools’ inability to innovate and, therefore, use their professionalism....even for highly successful schools!

28. If, as the current 2009 Ofsted Framework states that, one of the “essential functions” of inspection is for parents to have informed choices about schools (p.2) and that inspection aims to help users understand the findings of an inspection and help to drive improvements (p.1)—all undoubtedly worthy but these “essential functions” cannot be achieved with the current inspection system. The original remit as the “Office for Standards in Education” has lost its way and, consequently, inspectors are too generalist, inspections are too generalised and reports are too superficial. A review to understand the purpose and nature of school inspection for schools who will operate with more autonomy is, therefore, critical.

Notes

1 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us/Working-for-Ofsted

2 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/Press-and-media/2009/June/New-inspection-system-to- improve-outcomes-for-pupils/(language)/eng-GB

3,4 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us

5 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/

6 http://ofstednews.ofsted.gov.uk/issue/35 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w211

Recommendations In order to simplify and redeﬁne Ofsted’s work as the “Ofﬁce for Standards in Education” and to recognise a new autonomy for schools:

Create a new Ofsted structure — The current work of Ofsted is too wide—there needs to be a separation of Welfare and Academic inspections. Ofsted should focus only on Academic settings with a new inspectorate to focus only on Welfare settings. To ensure school autonomy, the welfare aspects in a school should be monitored by the school themselves (and possibly LAs). — The current work of Ofsted and inspectors is not as independent as it should be—there is a need to reconstitute an independent HM Inspectorate to carry out school inspections and (quite separately) carry out surveys for checking government initiatives.

Publish a new Ofsted Academic Framework for schools — The current Framework is too generalised—there needs to be a new set of principles which recognises a school’s autonomy so that inspectors evaluate “outcomes” in relation to each school’s work rather than using a predetermined set of criteria to ensure compliance. — The content of the current Framework is too broad—there needs to be a sharper focus on school improvement by only evaluating the following: pupils’ standards and achievement (their academic achievement and their behaviour), the quality of teaching, the effectiveness of leadership (including impact of the curriculum, CPD, ﬁnance and safety issues), — There are no clear analyses about learners’ standards and achievement in the current Framework— there needs to be a renewed focus for inspectors’ work by evaluating as few areas as possible: Reading, writing, speaking and listening Mathematics How these subjects have an impact on other areas of the curriculum Importantly, after this change there needs to be time for a new structure and Framework to settle so that there is a real stability and a genuine conﬁdence in the system.

References Alexander, R. (2010) (Ed.) Children, their world, their education. Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review London: Routledge. Brown, M, Askew, M, Baker, D, Denvir, H and Millett, A. (1998) Is the National Numeracy Strategy research- based? School of Education, King’s College London BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, ISSN 0007–1005 VOL. 46, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1998, PP 362–385. Cabinet Ofﬁce (2008) Excellence and fairness: Achieving world class public services HMSO. DCSF (1999) National Numeracy Strategy Primary Strategy—Mathematics Framework (2003/2006) http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk DCSF (2008) Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP, 2008) http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/243338 Education(Schools) Act 1992 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920038_en_1 House of Commons (2010a) Children, Schools and Families Committee School Accountability: Responses from the Government and Ofsted to the First Report of the Committee, Session 2009–10, Third Special Report of Session 2009–10, House of Commons, 22 March 2010 House of Commons (2010b) Children, Schools and Families Committee (2010) From Baker to Balls: the foundations of the education system, Ninth Report of Session 2009–10, House of Commons, Formal Minutes 24 March 2010 Ofsted (2005) The national literacy and numeracy strategies and the primary curriculum HMI 2395 London: Ofsted Ofsted (2009a) The Framework for School Inspection: The framework for school inspection in England under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, from September 2009 London: Ofsted Ofsted (2009b), Talisman: Issue 78, Sept http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/ Newsletters/Back-issues/talisman/talisman-78 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w212 Education Committee: Evidence

Ofsted (2009c) The Evaluation Schedule for Schools London: Ofsted http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Evaluation- schedule-of-judgements-for-schools-inspected-under-section-five-of-the-Education-Act-2005-from-September- 2009. Pollard, S. (2010) Gove’s first fight is against the enemy within The Daily Telegraph 26 May http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/7765866/Michael-Goves-first-fight-is-against-the-enemy-within.html Richardson, C (2009) in Alexander, R. (2010) (Ed.) Introducing the Primary Review. Sergeant, W (2009) Wasted: the betrayal of white working class and black Caribbean boys Surrey: Centre for Policy Studies October 2010

APPENDICES Appendix 1—Inspection report for Shooters Hill Post 16 Campus (2009) http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/117236 Appendix 2—Inspection report for Lea Valley Primary School (2009) http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/109777

Memorandum submitted by Mrs Carole Thomson 1. Ofsted should be focused only on key educational issues and a minimal number of statutory policies for schools. 2. Schools should be inspected only by persons (HMI) with up to date and proven high quality educational experience. It should continue with subject inspections only to identify and disseminate good practice. 3. Inspection teams have not been of consistently good quality and this has had an adverse effect on some schools. In particular no secondary teacher should be the lead inspector for primary or Special school inspection teams (or vice versa). 4. The inspection framework should remain consistent over the longer term (certainly for more than one inspection round). Since the establishment of Ofsted I have experienced inspection in primary and secondary schools and no two inspection rounds have been comparable with the previous one. Consequently I believe that parents have been making comparisons based on inspection reports that are essentially unreliable. 5. Section 48 denominational inspection of schools should not be Government funded. 6. Schools should be allowed to opt in to Section 48 inspections if they ﬁnd them beneﬁcial. Churches should provide funding if they believe they are important for their schools. It is particularly important, if retained, that it should not be a separate, additional bureaucratic burden. (e.g. there is a long separate self evaluation form used in Oxfordshire), but re-assimilated in to the main inspection visit. 7. Governors should be acknowledged within the inspection process as part of the school leadership team. This has been inconsistently applied across previous inspection frameworks. Written by the Chair of a local authority Governors' Association in a private capacity (i.e. based on more than 25 years experience as a primary & secondary school governor) but without direct consultation with our membership. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Angela Cross-Durrant Submission to the Education Committee for its inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. This submission refers to post-compulsory further education(FE) in order to make speciﬁc points, but nevertheless addresses all the organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit.

Summary ofMainPoints — The purposes of inspections should be to provide the public and government with an objective, professional account of the quality and resultant standard of services and provision, and value for money, regarding those inspected in each setting. — Inspection should not be confused with being “a critical friend”, though often it is. — Inspection can neither compensate nor be blamed for inadequacies in organisations: it can identify these and require remedial action but should not give advice for or help the remedial action: that is a role for advisors, trainers and consultants. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w213

— Similarly, inspection should not take the credit for organisations’ and services’ sometimes spectacular improvement. It provides merely a trigger for change or improvement. — The organisation and management of Ofsted’s very wide remit demands careful consideration: proliferation of inspectorates by dismantling Ofsted is unlikely to be cost effective. — The factors to be weighted within the inspection process should be kept to a minimum. — Ofsted’s performance criteria need re-visiting to ensure it gives a robust account of its outcomes. — The role of Ofsted’s Board needs to be reviewed.

Introduction toContributor

A Cross-Durrant, MSc, BA (Hons), FRSA, Cert Ed: former Ofsted HMI (retired) in the Post Compulsory Education Division—ADM191 policy and planning, budget management, re-inspections, appeals, QA of inspections; leading inspections as HMI—and FEFC Inspector; regional Further Education Manager for the south (Nord Anglia); education research at former FEU; non-executive Member of NTO192 continued when it became the Admin Lead Body, now Member of pan-sector SSC193 Council for Administration; various teaching/cross-college roles in FE colleges; examiner and moderator.

Points to beAddressed

1. Purposes of inspections

1.1 It is sometimes clearer to describe what something should not be rather than what it should be. The role of inspections is not to provide “a critical friend” to those being inspected. That is for professional advisers or consultants. Critical friends place reliance on goodwill and shared efforts to address issues but without any attendant powers. Inspections must involve impartial conclusions based on factual evidence, objective reporting, and powers to require others to act. However, there remains confused understanding and/or disagreement concerning these points, to a greater or lesser degree, both among those being inspected and those conducting inspections. This is probably one of the reasons why there is a need periodically to seek the answers to the points raised by this New Inquiry.

1.2 Ofsted’s remit is made up of a wide range of constituent parts. In order to be ﬁt for purpose, inspections of the various constituents depend on the purposes of each of the constituent parts themselves. The purposes of the various constituents ﬁrstly need to be stated clearly and interpreted uniformly. Whether this is always achieved through well-intentioned mission statements or statements of purpose is very much open to question.

1.3 Inspections ought to be viewed as a duty carried out on behalf of the recipients of the various services. Whereas the detail of the purposes varies across the settings, the constituents have one purpose above all else in common: they ought to provide high-quality ‘services’ that result in high-quality outcomes for the recipients.

1.4 Each setting has different emphases, but the main purpose of inspections of all of them ought primarily to seek proof that high-quality outcomes are achieved—because they are in the users’ and public’s best interest. Inspections also ought to “test” (by direct observation where appropriate, or via scrutiny of policy and procedures) the processes used to arrive at the outcomes, which ought to include the management and quality assurance of the processes. Consequently, inspections can identify any shortcomings and require remedial action to be taken. If investigating the processes were excluded from the purposes of inspection, and possible shortcomings were to remain, students, for example, would not achieve what they ought to achieve, or children would not be cared for as they should be. This is patently not in anyone’s best interest. Inspectorates should have powers to require action to be taken, and to impose sanctions when action is insufﬁcient or ignored.

1.5 Inspection should also identify best practice and publicise it widely for the beneﬁt of others. Inspection should report ﬁndings nation-wide so that levels of quality and standards reached can be gathered along with best practice, publicised, and comparisons made (possibly in the form of league tables, but other formats may do just as well) to address ‘lotteries’ concerning differing levels of quality and standards. This should enable organisations’ progress in raising quality and standards to be monitored. It should also enable sensible target- setting, performance indicators and evolving qualitative criteria to be formed by government for Ofsted, and by Ofsted for organisations. In turn, this provides the means for accountability.

1.6 For its part, Ofsted must itself provide evidence that it has fulﬁlled its purpose professionally, objectively and without fear or favour, and has given value for money, thereby giving an account of its own impact and performance. Ofsted’s Board should play a full role in holding Ofsted to account not just regarding its ﬁnances but also its professional operations. To this end, the Board needs to include members who are experts in the various settings in Ofsted’s remit. 191 Acting Assistant Divisional Manager. 192 National Training Organisation 193 Sector Skills Council cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w214 Education Committee: Evidence

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 2.1 Many pupils leave school with unacceptable levels of literacy, numeracy and other functional and social skills. Too many students who have been through further education courses in colleges leave with no qualification, a partial qualification, or have failed to complete the courses they began. This is sometimes viewed as the low impact of inspection. 2.2 Whether this is the “fault” of inspection or the “fault” of schools and colleges is often the subject of debate. Much along the lines of returning to first principles, the purpose of the provider of the service needs to be returned to as does the purpose of inspection. Crime is not the “fault” of the police. Failure to capture criminals may be, but the actual criminal activity is not. So it is with educational outcomes. Schools and colleges are tasked with providing high-quality education and training resulting in high-quality outcomes. If recipients are guided with integrity onto courses appropriate to their ability but subsequently under-achieve, it suggests the processes between start and end are less than optimal. This is a shortcoming of the organisation being inspected not of inspection. If inspection failed to identify shortcomings and suggested weakened recommendations for action, whether they were subsequently monitored or not, its impact would be poor. If inspection results in robust and relevant recommendations which are minimally heeded, the organisation lies at “fault”. 2.3 Inspection cannot be held responsible for pupil or student or organisational under-performance unless it has the right to instruct organisations how to improve, has professionals who can work alongside organisations to bolster their efforts, and trainers to up-skill the workforce. But, if the inspectorate did have such staff and perform such work, it would rightly be criticised for inspecting its own advice. Inspection is just that— investigation, scrutiny, examination of services and attendant or supporting activities. The outcome of local inspection is an informative report containing recommendations. The outcome of national reporting should inform the public and educational policy. 2.4 If the requirement is for a critical friend, then Ofsted ought to be abolished and registered advisory and consultancy services established instead. However, there would still be a need to obtain disinterested and factual reporting on national quality and standards, which individual advisory services could not provide. 2.5 The impact of inspection does, however, rest on the seriousness and determination with which organisations take prompt and effective action as a result of inspection. It can justifiably be argued that, in turn, this depends on the respect inspection earns. While there is disagreement about critical friends and objective inspection, the confusion will continue and the impact of inspection may be misjudged. However, it also has to be acknowledged that Ofsted’s performance contributes to the level of respect afforded it.

3. ThePerformance of Ofsted inCarryingOut itsWork 3.1 It is unsurprising that Ofsted’s performance is usually judged by those being inspected according to the professionalism, expertise and conduct of inspectors on an inspection team, but notably also dependent on the grades awarded by the team. For example, if the grades are low it would be rare to find a high satisfaction rate. Inspections continue to be evaluated by those who have been inspected, and in the post-compulsory area at least the satisfaction rates have been consistently acceptable or high. Most FE inspectors behave respectfully and professionally. 3.2 Regarding Ofsted’s overall performance, much depends on the view taken about ‘fault’ (as in paragraph 2.2 above). It has regularly met its targets and performance indicators in terms of the number of inspections, visits, its budget, and reports. It does report that standards have been raised over time, though clearly the yardstick has periodically been changed. Whether the performance criteria against which Ofsted is being judged are fully appropriate, whether its Board has sufficient influence on professional operations, or whether user feedback determines the basis for assessing its performance deserves closer attention. All three should be used, but the nature and weighting (and opportunity regarding the Board) of them needs reviewing. 3.3 Ofsted is also judged by the way it deals with appeals and complaints. Without actual evidence it is impossible to establish whether any dissatisfaction with this aspect is because of a perceived perfunctory or biased response, or because the recipient failed to understand the response, which is a failure of the response author, or whether the grounds for the appeal were sound but not properly investigated. The number and type of complaints and their outcomes need to be examined carefully before an objective assessment of this aspect of Ofsted’s performance can be made.

4. The Consistency and Quality ofInspectionTeams 4.1 In September 2009, Ofsted re-organised by dividing its remit among three regions, each with an Ofsted director. Ofsted outsourced the resourcing of all inspections to three regional contractors, one in each region. For the ﬁrst time, it apportioned a third of all its remit to each region. The regional contractors recruit, train, subcontract and quality-assure part-time inspectors across the full extent of Ofsted’s remit. Whether the training and supervision are rigorous, effective and consistent across the three regions is perhaps still open to debate. Notwithstanding this, part-time inspectors, for example on college inspections, are monitored by their contracted employers and also by the lead inspectors on inspection teams. There has sometimes been disagreement between the lead inspector and contractor regarding the performance of a part-time inspector. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w215

This can lead to confusion for the inspector who may have been given two differing views regarding her/his performance. Some part-time inspectors are subcontracted by more than one regional contractor: they may be deemed to have performed well in one region and, doing nothing differently, to have under-performed in another. Either way, this situation jeopardises consistency. More careful recruitment, training and management of part-time inspectors cannot be over-emphasised. 4.2 The success of inspection teams depends most strongly on the lead inspector. In post-compulsory inspections, the lead inspector is always (so far) an HMI. (Part-time inspectors can lead school inspections.) So far as HMIs are concerned, their expertise cannot always be used appropriately. Because some inspections cease (eg DWP inspections), HMIs sometimes have to inspect or lead inspections outside of their expertise. Training or preparation for this takes the form of initial ‘shadowing’ of those with the requisite expertise. However, strong conﬁdence based on experience and expertise is needed to lead and manage inspection teams effectively. If the lead inspector’s background differs from the setting being inspected it may well lead some inspection teams to be less than optimal. 4.3 Inspection reports sometimes contain similar ﬁndings but accompanied by different grades. Whether this is the result of inconsistent editing, inconsistent quality of report writing, or inconsistent grading is open to question. However, it does raise the attendant concern that equally it might be the result of inconsistent quality of inspection teams, inconsistent investigation of evidence and consequent grading, despite Ofsted’s attempts at comparing and moderating them. While a complete one hundred per cent consistency among such a large workforce is unrealistic, the level of inconsistency—perceived or actual—has to be addressed through better inspection or writing or training or management, or all of them.

5. TheWeightGiven toDifferentFactorsWithin the Inspection Process 5.1 The main purpose of Ofsted’s constituents is to provide high-quality services that ought to result in high- quality outcomes. Therefore, outcomes ought to be the factor to carry the most weight regardless of organisation, setting or service. To achieve appropriate outcomes, there have to be appropriate processes. This depends on the needs of recipients. Therefore, a familiar concept of “input, process and output” can be used as a framework for identifying and weighing evidence. The three concepts are interdependent. 5.2 In a further education college, for example, the input factor represents the students whose aptitudes, abilities, interests and needs should be addressed when enrolling them on courses. Students must be enrolled with integrity and not just to ﬁll seats regardless of ability or aptitude. The processes would include: enrolling; learning; teaching/training; additional coaching; and specialised support for learning needs and disabilities; and managing them for success—in and outside the classroom. If these are effective, there should be good outcomes. The input/process/output factors ought to carry the most weight. The process and outcomes could amount to one factor rather than two, and the other determining factor the management of the parts and the whole. 5.3 There is much noise from all the settings about outcomes. The factors described above are all interdependent and starting with outcomes in no way interferes with or denies their interdependency. Inspectors start by examining outcomes prior to an inspection to identify lines of inquiry. Unless the purpose of an organisation is not to ensure high-quality outcomes, there is no justiﬁcation for objecting to their weight, or for criticising a keen, objective and responsible investigation of them.

6. Whether Inspection of AllOrganisations, Settings and Services SupportingLearning and Welfare isBestConducted by aSingleInspectorate 6.1 As mentioned, the different constituents in Ofsted’s remit ought to have one common key purpose: that of ensuring high-quality outcomes. Beyond that, there is among them a spectrum of differences in character, detail, setting and service. 6.2 Children’s Services specialists, for example, have complained that Ofsted is ‘too education orientated’ to deal effectively with their issues. The same kind of differences could be claimed regarding primary and secondary education on the one hand, and further education, adult education and other post-compulsory education and training settings on the other. Consideration could be given to separating the various constituents into quasi self-contained, confederated settings and services but coordinated and directed, for example, by one Executive Director. What is not needed is a proliferation of inspectorates with their attendant costs and bureaucracy. Some degree of bureaucracy is essential, but it is often the case that bureaucracy is blamed for its misuse. 6.3 Whether it is the case that one organisation cannot deal with this variety of settings, or whether one set of criteria, however customised, cannot apply equally successfully across that variety is an open question. Common criteria applied across areas that are different enough to warrant different expertise and training usually result either in necessarily over-generalised criteria which are open to various interpretations, or a high degree of customisation that renders the originals virtually unrecognisable, or applying the original where it does not fit properly. It calls into question the fitness for purpose of the original. Attempting to be all things to all settings is anyway a recipe for generalisation in fields that ought to be highly specialised. It can be argued, however, that if this is so, then the organisation and management of the organisation is open to doubt. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w216 Education Committee: Evidence

7. TheRole of Ofsted in Providing an Accountability Mechanism for SchoolsWithGreater Autonomy 7.1 As in paragraph 1.3, targets, performance indicators and qualitative criteria form the basis of an accountability mechanism. Targets, however, ought to be realistic and appropriate. Like bureaucracy, they are almost always blamed for their misuse. Target-setting has a long way to go. 7.2 No matter how autonomous schools become, some form of objective assessment of their operation and consequent outcomes will always be needed (as in paragraph 1.6 above). Further education colleges have more autonomy over their provision and operations than do schools. They are able to provide almost any recognised courses and services so long as local needs and interests are addressed. It is sensible market-driven provision, and it is the government’s basis for funding it. With autonomy comes responsibility and accountability. Colleges are rightly subject to formal inspection despite this greater autonomy. The same should apply to schools that do or will enjoy a high degree of autonomy. 7.2 Some may argue that providing self-assessments for scrutiny should be a substitute for inspection and thereby provide adequate accountability. Were self-assessment fully successful, there would be few shortcomings, and they would be corrected. This is not always the case. A signiﬁcant number of colleges remain just about adequate over 12 or more years and three or more inspections. At best self-assessment reports are indicators. Self-assessment is insufﬁciently impartial and is neither a substitute for inspection nor a robust means of accountability. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by CfBT, Tribal and Serco Introduction Ofsted has operated an outsourced inspection model successfully for 17 years. The current Education, Learning and Skills inspection contracts commenced in September 2009, following a rigorous procurement process that delivered substantial savings to Ofsted. Of the three successful bidders, two were incumbent providers (CfBT and Tribal) and one (SERCO) was new. The contracts cover inspection not only of maintained and independent schools but also learning and skills (L&S), including FE colleges and work-based learning, and initial teacher education (ITE). This paper is a joint submission from those three Inspection Service Providers (ISPs). The sections completed are those which focus on the delivery of the contract and where there is unanimity of view.

What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 1. We believe inspection needs to: (a) Contribute to school, organisational, setting or service improvement and pupil or student achievement through clear identiﬁcation of poor performance and how to put it right and through the sharing and best use of good practice. (b) Provide public accountability (ie assurance to Ministers and the public including parents, employers and other stakeholders) and report in public in ways that are useful to different audiences. (c) Generate information and intelligence for decision-makers (eg for Ministers). (d) Be demonstrably independent of those institutions that teach children and young people or, like local authorities and other bodies, support and challenge those institutions. (e) Stimulate schools and service providers to deliver good value and ensure that inspection itself provides good value for money.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 2. The inspection and regulatory regime has become increasingly complex and extensive. In so doing, the focus has broadened and its impact and cost effectiveness become harder to measure. In some cases, this has led to duplication of quality assurance functions (eg the range of audits, awarding body veriﬁcations and inspection in FE) and, in others may have led to a reduction in provider numbers (e.g. in childcare). The relationship and accountabilities between the organisations and individuals with roles in school improvement (eg SIPs, local authorities, accredited providers and schools and other education providers such as FE Colleges) is not always clear—and, therefore, nor is the route from inspection to improvement. 3. Ofsted has already initiated a move towards a more proportionate approach to inspection. In the new policy climate, with greater institutional autonomy, there is scope to increase this markedly. A move to a lighter-touch regime for schools graded “good” and minimal involvement for schools graded “outstanding” creates new opportunities to increase the impact of inspection on raising standards in those schools that have stubbornly remained satisfactory year on year. However unless deeper, fuller inspections and post-inspection support to schools graded “satisfactory” or lower is speciﬁcally pursued, the opportunity to raise standards in cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w217

these schools through inspection will be lost. We would also recommend a ﬁrmer judgement on the school’s capacity to improve. A failing school is expected to make progress within 12 months—there is no such time pressure on schools that have remained grindingly satisfactory year on year and there should be.

4. As Ofsted’s inspection partners, ISPs believe there is potential to increase the impact of inspection on improvement by engaging differently with stakeholders and school managers, following through more fully with weaker schools, better exploiting the information on good practice available from inspections, equipping more headteachers with inspection skills and reporting more ﬂuidly post inspection with more focused and different reports for the main target recipients of school and parents.

5. Where governors, the leadership team, teachers and parents have a more in-depth understanding of the basis for the judgements about the school they are more likely to be committed to ensuring improvements are made. Involvement in school inspections could include extending the inclusion of an institutional nominee to the inspection team (with due care to maintain the independence of the inspection process). They are already used to good effect in college inspections. A greater focus on the extent to which governing bodies are effective in challenging the leadership team would help drive the impetus for change in poorer performing schools.

6. The current level of engagement of parents is low. This is particularly signiﬁcant in the poorly-performing institutions. It is generally accepted that parental involvement and pressure is a signiﬁcant driver of improvement and greater depth of inspection in satisfactory and inadequate settings would allow for more opportunities to meet parents and others during inspection. A parent report which helps set a local agenda for them to consider would be of more assistance than the present arrangements.

7. Similarly, research194 as well as experience indicates the value of tailored feedback—with more attention and greater prescription in the case of weaker schools. This would be helpful in re-setting parental expectations where, even in schools performing badly many parents profess themselves to be satisﬁed with the school.

8. In an environment which places increasing trust in competent institutions to manage themselves, post- inspection support needs to be differentiated appropriately. It is clear that academies such as Mossbourne and chains such as those led by Ark and Haberdashers are raising standards in the deprived areas. At the same time, there is little evidence that School Improvement Partners have had a rapid or sustained impact on school improvement. There is evidence that Grade 3 visits to some schools deemed inadequate have generated signiﬁcant gains. For example in one region, G3 schools which had an interim monitoring visit increased their capacity to improve judgement to good or better from 13% at ﬁrst inspection to 54% at subsequent inspection. It is questionable whether local authorities will have the capacity to carry out a school improvement role that can stimulate such improvement.

9. Inspectors are already trained, understand school improvement and could provide greater professional input where there is poor performance, moving on from making judgements to working in partnership with schools to enable them to plan effectively and signposting them to sector-led support. We propose that schools graded 3 be required to follow-up their inspections by participating in “Capacity to Improve Workshops” led by inspectors. These would build on feedback and the inspection report to help groups of schools (represented by the head and governor representative) develop sharply focused, measurable action plans. ISPs would be well-placed to monitor the implementation of school action plans and update their assessments cost-effectively, since they would already know the settings.

10. The plans could include identiﬁcation of sources of further advice and support with an emphasis on what works. The plan should also set a target of moving from satisfactory to good in targeted steps over a maximum period of three years. There is potential for making the way in which inspection links with improvement more sophisticated yet cost-effective. Data gathered via inspection represents a rich seam of good practice which, if signposted effectively, could be used to support school-wide and school-led improvement, directing schools towards others who have handled similar challenges successfully. A further source will be of individual schools and groups of schools who are prepared to make their expertise available. It may also be appropriate to review the current HMI link role with local authorities to assess whether this can be delivered in a different way as part of a restructured set of services.

11. We know from monitoring our serving practitioner inspectors (mainly headteachers) that inspection expertise carries real beneﬁts to their own schools. The most signiﬁcant impact is very clearly school improvement. This is evident in leadership and management, teaching and learning and the curriculum. A common theme among the responses to a study of these practitioner inspectors by one ISP was that their training and inspection work had sharpened their school’s self review abilities, making their own improvement planning sharper and of greater impact.

12. We have demonstrable success in training large numbers of inspectors to high standards, using a cost- effective mix of IT-based distance learning and practical training. We could easily provide training for school leaders in the broad framework of inspection evaluation criteria, lesson observation and self-evaluation. This would increase the capacity of schools to bring about their own improvement. One ISP currently has around 1000 practitioners awaiting just such training. 194 Ehren and Visscher: 2006: Towards a Theory on the Impact of School Inspections cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w218 Education Committee: Evidence

13. While the drive to simplify inspection reports is understandable, we believe there is a need to review the inspection report format to ensure feedback and reporting better meet the needs of the main recipients: (a) Providers require a more detailed educational analysis than currently given. Their report needs to offer a clear diagnosis of areas for improvement, together with guidance on actions required to address the deficits. If the discussions have been sufficiently comprehensive during the inspection, it would be reasonable to set targets for improvement, laying a firmer foundation for subsequent monitoring. (Evidence suggests that a more directive approach is required for weaker institutions.)195 This report should be publicly available. (b) Parents may want little more than a report card incorporating clear statements and grades against key elements but where a poor performing school is required to improve within a specified timescale parents should have a copy of the school’s action plan to achieve that and termly reports on progress from the governing body. (Bearing in mind the fuller report would be available.) (c) We question the value of a separate letter to pupils/students.

Ofsted’s performance No response

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 14. ISPs provide approximately 60% of the lead inspectors for all school inspections and 75% of total inspection days. HMI currently lead all L&S and ITE inspections and 75% of secondary school inspections. An analysis of data by Ofsted and by the ISPs shows little discernible difference in quality and performance between the Ofsted and ISP inspection workforces, with School Inspection Survey return data for 2009 -10 showing similar satisfaction rates, in excess of 90% for AI and HMI led inspections. The performance management regime for the contracts, which includes financial penalties for under-performance, requires that ISPs achieve 100% performance against a range of measures relating to the quality and efficiency of processes and judgements. 15. A number of other mechanisms are in place to assist in the achievement of consistent inspector performance. For example, each of the ISPs operates rigorous performance management arrangements based on collation of evidence collected from inspections, inspectors and the inspected. Joint working groups are established in which HMI and ISP quality assurance personnel work together and from which advice to all inspectors is derived. Together with the contract management measures, such activities underpin a high level of consistency and quality. 16. However that is not to say there is no scope for further improvement or greater efficiency. There is, for example, duplication of activity between HMI and ISP quality assurance inspectors in monitoring inspections and managing reports to publication. Ofsted has successfully operated a partially outsourced inspection model for 17 years with successive competitive re—procurements driving down costs as workforce issues, processes and technology are refined and improved. This has been achieved in tandem with improvements in quality. We believe value for money and consistency in inspection delivery would be further increased by moving to a more fully outsourced model with ISPs taking responsibility for contracting and signing off inspectors, delivering inspections and quality assuring output. 17. Performance data show that new contracts have bedded in and are building securely on the contract management arrangements in force since 2005. Consequently we believe it would be possible to set a performance threshold for ISPs, within the current key performance indicators, which would enable Ofsted to withdraw from detailed management of outsourced inspections once the delivery threshold had been reached by each ISP. A fully-contracted model would produce savings by eliminating duplication of activities as described above. It would enable clear delineation between the roles of HMI and ISP inspectors, with a small, expert HMI team ensuring performance of the contract. With ISP inspectors leading more inspections, less time spent in direct inspection delivery by HMI would enable them to focus on key national roles including operating as a source of up-to-date professional expertise drawing on knowledge of practice and cutting-edge, international research (e.g. in relation to changes in the curriculum); analysis and interpretation of national data; and evaluation of policy initiatives (including value for money) through targeted, specialist inspections. 18. Finally, there is no external evidence that we are aware of to support assertions either of inconsistencies between teams or the three ISPs or between HMI and AI led teams. Complaints are running at very low levels and none, so far as we know, have raised either of these concerns

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 19. ISPs support fully the policy to focus future inspections on the quality of teaching and learning; the effectiveness of the leadership team; pupils’ behaviour and safety and pupils’ achievement. This precision will enable investment of more inspector time in driving school improvement. For example, the narrower focus will permit sharper diagnosis (e.g. more time for lesson observation to uncover weaknesses in teaching and its effect on learners) and more extensive opportunities for dialogue with school leaders and governors (e.g. to 195 Ibid cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w219

identify barriers to improvement). Additionally, we would suggest that for all schools currently graded satisfactory the inspection team should, through dialogue with the school, form a view on the efficacy of the support and challenge provided by the local authority and its SIPs. Some schools that have been Grade 3 for years have also for years been in receipt of additional support from their local authority without significant discernible improvement in the quality of the education provision. 20. The current emphasis on exploring the SEF view can be replaced by genuine pursuit of key evidence of strengths and weaknesses, within the context of the school’s self evaluation processes and outcomes. 21. Appropriate data, used effectively, can already enable inspectors to focus on the right lines of enquiry and use their time effectively. However, there is scope for greater trust in the professionalism and experience of inspectors. This would give them the flexibility to redirect their activities once an inspection was under way, enabling them to tailor their work to the emerging evidence and achieve greater impact while managing risk. It would allow—for instance—inspectors to respond directly to issues raised by employers, parents, pupils or teachers. 22. A further area for re-establishing inspectors’ professional judgement relates to the “limiting judgements” in the current schools framework. Where this occurs, one judgement limits another. Given the widely differing circumstances within individual schools, rigid application of this principle becomes problematic. In our view, inspectors should be free to make their judgements based on the evidence before them.

Whether the organisation of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate No response

Ofsted’s role in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 23. We recognise that data should not have primacy over professional judgements. There are, however, rich data sources available. ISPs have considerable experience of carrying out pre-inspection risk assessments. Consequently, they are well-placed to work with government to develop cost-effective, desk-based monitoring and accountability processes for use in reviewing schools judged “outstanding”. 24. We do not believe that schools rated as “outstanding” or those operating with greater autonomy by way of their status should be entirely exempted from the inspection regime. However we agree that they should not normally be subject to full inspection, allowing resources to be focused on lower performing schools. Evidence tells us, however, that “outstanding” schools can experience a rapid decline in both provision and standards in certain circumstances. We thus support a model by which Ofsted and its ISP partners risk assess outstanding schools on the basis of an annual on-line return of information which should be routinely held by them. We propose the following indicators:

Main indicators — Decline in overall standards, English and mathematics, particularly literacy and numeracy, evidenced by pupil performance data from RAISEonline. — Decline in standards in speciﬁc subjects (secondary schools) evidenced by pupil performance data from RAISEonline. — Decline in overall standards relative to other similar institutions evidenced by pupil performance data from RAISEonline. — Change in headteacher. — Change in status or character. — High staff turnover. — Signiﬁcant change in pupil numbers. — Increased number of parental complaints. — Concerns expressed by local authority. — Decline in attendance.

Possible additional indicators — Significant budget deficit at year end or evidence of any financial irregularity. — Significant increase in exclusions. — Inadequate judgements in other provision inspected by Ofsted and managed by the Governing Body. Where the outcome of the assessment finds there is evidence of significant risk to pupils’ future achievement or safety, we would propose a one day visit by a single inspector to assess the need for further intervention by inspectors. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w220 Education Committee: Evidence

25. For those schools whose autonomy is vested in their status, a similar regime might be applied with appropriate metrics. An initial assessment of readiness is desirable, as currently the case with “academy pre- registration visits” Thereafter, as a minimum, an annual desk based risk assessment, triggering more in depth inspection if appropriate, would serve the public interest. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers 1. ExecutiveSummary 1.1. It is ATL’s view that it is futile to review Ofsted without reviewing the whole accountability system for schools. 1.2. We believe that the severe negative impacts on both students and staff outweigh any achievement of the government’s desired aims for Ofsted inspections. 1.3. There are serious question marks over Ofsted’s consistency and the quality of inspections, in particular an over-reliance on examination data. Given this, we question the government’s decision to use Ofsted judgments as a basis for entirely separate policy, such as the expansion of Academies. 1.4. We strongly advocate a shift from national to local accountability for schools. Ofsted should cease to undertake section 5 inspections and its role would be to quality assure local processes. Government should commission an independent review to redeﬁne Ofsted’s form and function. 1.5. It is even more vital that the accountability system and Ofsted inspections are fully reviewed in light of the government’s plans for academies and free schools which will sit outside of local authority structures.

2. About the Association of Teachers and Lecturers ATL, the education union 2.1. ATL, as a leading education union, recognises the link between education policy and our members’ conditions of employment. Our evidence-based policy making enables us to campaign and negotiate from a position of strength. We champion good practice and achieve better working lives for our members. 2.2. We help our members, as their careers develop, through ﬁrst-rate research, advice, information and legal support. Our 160,000 members—teachers, lecturers, headteachers and support staff—are empowered to get active locally and nationally. We are afﬁliated to the TUC, and work with government and employers through partnership and by lobbying.

ATL policy 2.3. ATL believes that teachers as professionals must be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement, at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role of education in increasing social justice. Within light national parameters, development of the education system should take place at a local level: the curriculum should be developed in partnership with local stakeholders; assessment should be carried out through local professional networks. Schools and colleges are increasingly encouraged to work collaboratively to offer excellent teaching and learning, and to support pupils’ well-being, across a local area. Accountability mechanisms should be developed so that there is a proper balance of accountability to national government and the local community, which supports collaboration rather than competition

3. Ofsted isOnlyaPart of theAccountabilitySystem 3.1. It is ATL’s view that it is futile to review Ofsted without reviewing the whole accountability system for schools. 3.2. ATL believes that accountability is a duty on all public servants and especially those entrusted with the education of future generations. However, accountability must be balanced against professional autonomy. 3.3. We said in our submission to the Select Committee for Children, Schools and Families’ 2009/10 enquiry into school accountability that “Professional accountability implies commitment to evaluate and improve, it does not require a juggernaut of data collection and detailed comparison of schools”. The current accountability system gives undue weight to central government, particularly through national test data and Ofsted inspection. This leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and mitigates against professional reﬂection, innovation and creativity. We must remember that schools are accountable beyond central government; to parents, the governing body and the local community. The accountability system must rebalance these interests. 3.4. Ofsted inspection of schools is a mechanism for holding individual schools to account. However, schools do not operate in isolation from each other; they work within a context of multiple external factors which affect pupils' learning and performance, and with a range of multi-agency services and support. A national inspection agency, visiting an individual school for a limited period of time cannot understand the local and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w221

collaborative context. And we contend cannot then provide more than a superficial assessment based mainly on performance data. 3.5. It is perfectly possible to improve “the performance of Ofsted”, as the select committee is assessing, and still have a deeply inspection unsatisfactory system that undermines the ability of school staff to provide an excellent education to their pupils. Instead it is important to look at the whole picture, how Ofsted, as it currently exists, interacts with the existence of league tables, high stakes examinations, school improvement partners (SIPs), self-evaluation, local authorities and governors. As it is now, we believe that the system requires educators to concentrate on jumping through hoops—be it producing the right data from tests, or “passing an Ofsted”—ahead of what drives them professionally, and what society demands of them: educating. 3.6. We believe that self-evaluation should drive school improvement196. It should be frank rather than calculated just for Ofsted. It is right for the self-evaluation form (SEF) to be validated locally and for families of schools to share good practice in self-evaluation. Though many teachers hate the bureaucracy, they welcome the benefits of self-evaluation.197 In abolishing the SEF, we are concerned that Michael Gove has set himself a difficult challenge for how to support school self-evaluation. There is a danger that, left to their own devices, some schools will generate systems of self-evaluation which are more bureaucratic than the self-evaluation form. 3.7. We believe that it is vital to consider the interaction of school improvement and accountability. Supportive accountability will encourage schools, colleges and the professionals working within them to be innovative and creative, where punitive accountability measures are seen to limit that capacity. 3.8. We are concerned that within a system of “independent state schools” the government will require some form of bureaucratic evaluation to monitor quality/consistency of provision. In the absence of Ofsted inspection, this may become a desk-based evaluation of test/exam data, which will provide an extremely limited picture of a school's work and unique circumstances. However, we know that Ofsted inspection has perverse consequences for schools, not least that it causes immense additional and unnecessary paperwork, focuses schools on data rather than education, and narrows curriculum and other opportunities for pupils. 3.9. There is now a large and excessive web of accountability mechanisms and school accountability needs rationalising as a matter of urgency. But this does not mean enhancing the powers of Ofsted. ATL continues to argue that Ofsted inspection of maintained schools is unnecessary as it duplicates a range of accountability and support mechanisms locally and nationally and impacts negatively upon both learners and professionals.

4. Impacts of theInspectionProcess 4.1. While we all want all schools to provide the best possible education for their pupils, the current inspection regime puts huge pressure on schools not judged good or outstanding to teach to a narrow curriculum that will not necessarily develop the skills, attitudes, confidence, and passion for learning which young people need. The centrally-driven accountability system demands that schools act in response to what Ofsted requires. What Ofsted argues are non-compulsory actions—such as written lesson plans—but which they may request to see, are enforced by head teachers and governors hamstrung by fear. Frequently, this is neither in accordance with the needs of every child nor society’s expectations of our education system. That Ofsted can essentially dictate so much of what goes on in a school is an uncomfortable truth undermining professionals and ultimately the education of young people themselves. 4.2. It is hard to put it better than the Children, Schools and Families’ Select Committee’s 2010 report into school accountability: “Yet most of those who may wish to use the Tables, particularly parents, remain unaware of the very serious defects associated with them and will interpret the data presented without taking account of their inherent flaws. As a result, many schools feel so constrained by the fear of failure according to the narrow criteria of the Tables that they resort to measures such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, an inappropriate focusing of resources on borderline candidates, and encouraging pupils towards ‘easier’ qualifications, all in an effort to maximise their performance data. There is an urgent need for the Government to move away from these damaging Achievement and Attainment Tables and towards a system which gives a full and rounded account of a school’s provision.” 4.3. In our survey of members in summer 2010, 69% of respondents said that Ofsted inspections did not help their school to improve. 76% did not agree that Ofsted inspections supported the raising of attainment of different pupil groups. And 90% stated that Ofsted inspections did not help them to do their job better. 4.4. Over three quarters of respondents reported either a moderate or significant amount of work was given to them “because Ofsted might visit”. In addition, as many as 1 in 12 described the workload increase as “unmanageable”. This additional work included: — “Unnecessary assessments and paperwork, done 'just in case'.” 196 See www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/88/8806.htm (part of the previous Select Committee’s report into school accountability) for more on the significance of the SEF. 197 Over a third of respondents to ATL’s 2010 survey of members said the SEF was extremely or very beneficial to them and their school. Less than 6% said it was not useful. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w222 Education Committee: Evidence

— “Increased lesson observations, increased marking burden, increased assessment of students, increased input of data to track students progress.” — “Additional reports to Governors, evidence forms, work scrutiny, planning scrutiny.” — “Assessment data updated in at least 3 different formats every review.” — “Rapid analysis of data. Work with people on the follow on from data. Social cohesion boards in our classroom with regular updates. Regular surveys most of which were analysed in house.” — “Gathering of evidence.” — “Lesson plan scrutiny weekly—two meetings a week, data reports six weekly, faculty reports six weekly, reports, reports, reports!” — “Display rearrangement.”

4.5. Education professionals understand their responsibilities to their pupils and their parents. However, we believe that Ofsted regime impacts negatively on pupils' education and on those who teach. One ATL member, when listing the work justiﬁed in pre-emption of an inspection, says, “The thing is all of this seems reasonable and what we should do, but the pace has been relentless and we are exhausted”. Another describes the overriding dominance of the expectation of Ofsted inspection: “Since July last year we have had to be Ofsted ready—as they might come at any minute. With constant reminders nearly every morning, this made the whole staff feel stressed and disengaged. Every thing had to be done in this light.” Given a list of existing criteria and asked what Ofsted should and shouldn’t be judging, members responding to our survey volunteered staff happiness or wellbeing as an addition.

4.6. On the new framework introduced in the last academic year, one member told us that “The whole process was far more negative than any previous inspection. I have always broadly agreed with previous inspections but not this one. I would rather leave teaching than go through another.” And another put Ofsted into context: “In times where the economy is delicate and lives are stressful, Ofsted inspections are an unnecessary, expensive and stressful part of the system.”

4.7. We believe that the severe negative impacts on both students and staff outweigh any achievement of the government’s desired aims for Ofsted inspections—ostensibly the publication of comparative snapshot judgments.

5. Consistency,Quality andPerformance of Ofsted 5.1. Evidence backs up the view that the focus of Ofsted is wrong, suggesting that approximately 85% of the variation in pupil achievement is due to factors external to the school, such as family background and economic circumstances.198 By putting more emphasis on exam and test results, Ofsted will be holding schools to account for things that are entirely outside their control.

5.2. ATL members are concerned about the abilities of inspection teams. If Ofsted inspections continue, it is essential that inspectors should have excellent knowledge and understanding of the phases that they inspect, particularly in the early years, and preferably based on recent classroom experience, and that they are fully trained in equality and diversity. The select committee report into school accountability earlier this year was clear that “inspectors will need to be highly trained and well qualiﬁed if they are to make an accurate evaluation of school provision.”

5.3. Our members are sceptical about the consistency of Ofsted inspections both at the level of individual lesson observations—a snapshot of “20 minutes out of 1000 hours of teaching a year” as one teacher puts it— and at the level of overall judgments, which for many schools have jumped significantly under the most recent framework. Media reports such as that published by The Daily Telegraph in April this year199, which record schools moving from a provisional assessment of “inadequate” to a judgment of “outstanding” upon publication of the final report, are not reassuring. Anecdotal evidence indicates inconsistency on safeguarding judgments and ATL members at our 2010 annual conference passed a resolution of concern that safeguarding is impacting significantly on the overall judgment received by schools.

5.4. Members retain concerns that Ofsted does not properly account for school intake. ATL is clear that schools who can clearly demonstrate improvement should be able to be judged “good” even if examination results are weaker when compared nationally.

5.5. The impact of Ofsted inspections has obvious immediate consequences for staff and students of a school. However, Ofsted inspection has longer-term consequences when the judgments are used as the basis for other government policy. In particular, we believe that the consistency and credibility of Ofsted judgments is too much in doubt to be used to determine such signiﬁcant changes as the expansion of Academies, with far- reaching and potentially damaging consequences to young people and to school staff. 198 See for example Cassen R. & Kingdon G. (2007) Tackling Low Achievement, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation 199 ‘Inspectors give wrong ratings to schools’: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7574833/Inspectors-give-wrong- ratings-to-schools.html cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w223

6. What is theAlternative to OfstedInspection? 6.1. If Ofsted section 5 inspection is to continue, we believe inspections should be based upon a balance of self-evaluation, inspectors’ judgment and data and statistics. Currently, there remains an over-reliance on (often unreliable) data, particularly that from high-stakes exams. Surveyed ATL members believe that the SEF can be the main basis for grading their school, ahead of the inspection team’s judgment and with over twice as much support as for data and statistics. 6.2. However, we strongly advocate a shift from national to local accountability for schools. 6.3. We believe that Ofsted should cease to undertake section 5 inspections in favour of a local system of accountability.200 In our radical rationalisation of the accountability system, schools would report much more locally, and much less nationally. A reformed SIP would work with local school improvement services, combining inspection and support with the advantage of understanding schools’ local context. It is essential that SIPs are a critical friend of the school; nurturing and supportive. 6.4. It is important that there is not a duplication of interests or responsibilities. Ofsted should not be replicating the role of the SIP nor undermining the SIP in the work its inspectors do. 6.5. An effective system would see SIPs able to encourage self-evaluation to be frank and useful, not written simply for Ofsted. SIPs would have a duty to report their evaluation of the SEF against their own ongoing knowledge of the school to the local authority and this would be moderated by Ofsted, who would quality assure all local accountability processes. 6.6. It is not clear in current government proposals how the local authority or its school improvement work will continue. However, we believe it is vital that it does, and that all schools come under a supportive local authority framework. 6.7. School-by-school inspection by Ofsted is unnecessary and would end under our rationalisation. Ofsted could instead focus on strengths such as its useful thematic reports.

7. Conclusion 7.1. ATL hopes the committee does not forget the work of its predecessor. In its first report of 2009–10, into school accountability, the Children, Schools and Families Committee was clear in its caution against “even greater complexity in an already overly complex system of school accountability and improvement initiatives” and in its support of self-evaluation as a crucial part of school improvement and accountability. 7.2. The committee also states that “Inspection should be a positive experience, reinforcing good practice and fostering dialogue with schools in relation to areas where further improvement can be made.” We are confident that this is not the case and that the accountability system requires urgent reform. Reform from the national to the local. And reform that amends radically the role of Ofsted, most notably abolishing its school- by-school inspections. 7.3. We continue to believe that the best system of accountability and school improvement is one that works across a local area, supported by the local authority, with a role for Ofsted in moderating local judgments and carrying out thematic reviews. We cannot see how this can operate in a system of Academies, set adrift from the support of local authorities. 7.4. If Ofsted inspection is to continue, this government must commission an independent review to redefine Ofsted’s form and function, and rationalise the whole accountability system for schools. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Lancashire County Councillor John Shedwick, Chair of the county council's Scrutiny Committee The following link http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayAgendas.asp?meetid=8200 will take you to a report that was considered by the above Committee at its meeting today, 8 October on the issue of Private Children's Homes. The role of Ofsted is key here as they are the inspecting, monitoring and regulatory body for these establishments, of which there are approximately 72 in Lancashire. We believe that our report contains evidence that should be useful to your enquiry as described in the terms of reference that you published. In debate, councillors raised a number of concerns about: the role and performance of Ofsted; the current national policies, practices and limitations of the current inspection regime in seeking to drive up standards of care and outcomes for looked after children placed across local authority boundaries. Councillors agreed therefore to undertake a more detailed review of this issue in the Lancashire context. Given the national dimension to this issue, councillors would like to submit their ﬁndings—in addition to the above report—to the Education Committee to use as evidence in its own work (the review will get underway straight away). 200 New accountability for schools—ATL Position Statement, 2007 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w224 Education Committee: Evidence

Our members would be happy to be of any further assistance that the Education Committee sees ﬁt for their own enquiries into Ofsted. In addition, our members would be most grateful for any assistance that the Education may be able to offer the county council in their seeking appropriate evidence to draw fully informed conclusions for Lancashire, in particular perhaps use of the formal powers that the Committee has to hold Ofsted to account

The draft terms of reference for Lancashire County Council's Scrutiny Committee review are: — Assess whether current arrangements to support cross-boundary Looked After Children in Lancs or from Lancs are effective and value for money in achieving standards of care as set out in Care Matters and Every Child Matters. — Establish what vulnerabilities there may be in the current arrangements, in particular with regard: — Safeguarding. — Education. — Access to health services. — Community safety. — Identify whether these possible vulnerabilities increase any risks that the county council and other local service providers fail to fulﬁl their statutory duties in an efﬁcient and value for money way. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Ann Coffey MP

I understand your committee is undertaking an inquiry into OFSTED.

I would like to bring to your committee’s attention some issues concerning the inspection of children’s homes.

I am sending to you separately a link to an adjournment debate which gives the background planning issues.201

The problem is that very dysfunctional young people with multiple problems are being placed often at some distance from their home locality in houses in residential districts. The impact on the surrounding neighbourhoods of their anti-social behaviour is huge in affecting the quality of life for residents. Of course this behaviour can be dealt with police powers in the Ant-Behaviour Act but this places demands on already stretched local agencies and resources.

It would be in everybody’s interests to ensure that the care management provided in these homes was of a standard that could manage and control their behaviour. This relies on robust inspections by OFSTED.

My concern is that inspections take place without proper information being gathered from local agencies, the police, schools or neighbours which would provide proper data of the actual quality of care and control in the homes.

OFSTED state that their inspections are based on the Minimum Standards in Children’s’ Homes regulations. A draft consultation on new standards was issued by the last government and I understand that the D of E will respond in November.

In answer to a PQ I obtained the latest information from OFSTED which gave a breakdown of the number of children’s homes who were classed as either outstanding, good satisfactory or inadequate.

I am sending this to you separately.202 I have concerns about the number of homes classed as either satisfactory or inadequate ( which is almost a third of the total).

I am also sending you some e-mails I have received from across the country and a report from Lancashire.203 As you can see this is a issue of concern.

Your committee’s inquiry provides an opportunity to look at some of the issues raised

It is important that children’s homes provide the highest standards of care and control not only for the young people placed there but for the community in which they live. October 2010

201 HC Deb, 1 February 2010, cols 138–146 202 Not published on the Committee’s website. 203 Not published on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w225

Memorandum submitted by National Day Nurseries Association About the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) 1. Background on regulation and inspection of the nursery sector 2. Evidence and key considerations: — What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted's remit). — The impact of the inspection process on school improvement. — The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work. — The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. — The weight given to different factors within the inspection process. — Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children's learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate. Please note that throughout this response we have focused on the day nursery sector.

1. About the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) is a national charity representing children’s day nurseries across the UK, giving them information, training and support, so they can provide the best possible care to young children. NDNA is the voice of the day nursery sector, an integral part of the lives of 600,000 children and their families. NDNA works with local and national government to develop an environment in which quality early years education and care can ﬂourish. For more information please visit our website at www.ndna.org.uk

2. Background onRegulation andInspection of theNurserySector 2.1 England’s 14,000 day nurseries have been required to be registered and inspected by Ofsted since 2001. Since 2008, Ofsted has inspected against the Early Years Foundation Stage, the regulatory and quality framework for the provision of learning, development and care for children between birth and the end of the academic year in which they turn ﬁve. Latest ﬁgures available for the “childcare on non-domestic premises” category, which includes day nurseries, show 11% achieving outstanding, 60% good, 27% satisfactory and 2% inadequate.1 There has been an upward trend in quality over recent years, with growing numbers of nurseries rated outstanding and good. 2.2 In September 2010, Ofsted outsourced inspection and registration visits for early years to Prospects Services Ltd and Tribal Group Plc. Ofsted has advised that the changes will enable it to focus on the quality of provision in the early years sector and that the way they inspect has not changed so providers should not notice any difference. NDNA is monitoring our day nursery members’ experience of inspections since the change in September and will respond accordingly if any concerns or issues emerge regarding inspection itself and the communication surrounding it. In the initial phase, outsourced inspections have been carried out by two inspectors, and we welcome this approach to support consistency. 2.3 NDNA has a constructive working relationship with Ofsted. We represent the nursery sector at the Early Years National Consultative Forum facilitated by Ofsted. We disseminate information from Ofsted to the sector through our communication channels, regularly host Ofsted speakers at our events and conferences and provide our own publications and advice to support our members with the inspection process. We report to Ofsted regularly on generic issues of concern to members, discuss potential solutions and receive signposting and advice from Ofsted in response to members’ queries about registration and inspection.

3. Evidence andKeyConsiderations 2.1 What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted's remit) 3.1.1 The primary purposes of inspection of early years should be to protect children and to drive quality improvement in provision, which in turn will support the best outcomes for children. 3.1.2 As a bare minimum, inspection should police compliance with the minimum welfare standards required to protect children through provision of safe and appropriate people, practices and environment. However, it is essential that as a nation our ambitions extend beyond welfare compliance alone and we support fully Ofsted’s remit to drive quality improvement in provision for children. International and UK evidence shows a clear link between the quality of early years provision and the outcomes for children in their early years and beyond. We believe Ofsted’s remit as set out in its Strategic Plan 2007–10 clearly reﬂects these purposes.2 A single body for inspection and regulation across early years is important to promote consistency in standards across England and to support parents, making it easy for them to understand how provision is inspected and make decisions about the care of their child. However, the nature of inspection by a national body, means it neither can nor should be the only mechanism to drive quality improvement—please see response to 3.2 below. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w226 Education Committee: Evidence

3.2 The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 3.2.1 Since the introduction of quality ratings to Ofsted inspection there has been an upward trend in the ratings achieved by early years providers. Latest figures available for the “childcare on non-domestic premises” category, which includes day nurseries, show 71% achieving good or outstanding, 27% satisfactory and 2% inadequate.1 Whilst in 2006, in full daycare, 60% achieved good or outstanding, 36% satisfactory and 4% inadequate.3 3.2.2 Overall our members’ feedback to us is that Ofsted has a beneficial impact on levels of quality in the sector. However, they feel that inspection can only be a “snapshot” at that point in time. The depth of inspection which typically lasts one day, sometimes including time for the inspector to draft the report, and the frequency, particularly for better quality nurseries which may only have an inspection visit once every four or five years, means Ofsted alone cannot drive quality improvement. 3.2.3 Early years quality improvement is driven by local authorities, who have a remit to support and drive improvement of maintained, private and voluntary provision in their areas. Typically, local authorities have early years advisory staff and mechanisms to visit, support and develop quality in early years provision, targeting their resources on those most in need of support, for example, where they have significant weaknesses or particular challenges such as large numbers of children with additional needs. As discussed below (3.4), there can be tensions and inconsistencies between Ofsted’s regulatory role and local authorities’ advisory roles, creating particular issues for private and voluntary childcare providers. 3.2.4 There is a particular link between quality improvement and the free early education entitlement for three and four year olds, with local authorities increasingly including quality factors in the formulae they use to calculate how much funding they will give to providers of the free entitlement. There are issues here when Ofsted ratings are included as a dominant factor in calculating funding levels. The infrequency of inspection means that providers can be funded at a low level that may reflect a rating from several years ago. Our members also highlight that a single Ofsted visit can give an inspection rating that does not accurately reflect their provision. Equally, due to the requirement to demonstrate “sustained improvement” it is highly unlikely that newly-opened settings can achieve a higher than “satisfactory” grade. It is therefore important that local authorities use other factors here to inform funding decisions. 3.2.5 One solution proposed to us by members for situations where a setting feels that it has made significant improvements, but an inspection is not due for a number of years, would be to give nurseries the option to have an early inspection at an additional cost. Ofsted ratings are understood and used by parents, so some nurseries would consider paying for an additional inspection a worthwhile investment. We have proposed this idea to Ofsted and believe it is worth consideration. Indeed, the flexibility brought by privately-delivered outsourced inspections may make this more achievable, without requiring additional inspection resources to be funded by Government. 3.2.6 There is an important role for early years quality improvement schemes in supporting settings to develop by working towards and being assessed against specific standards. Ofsted evidence has noted that participation in a quality improvement scheme is linked to achieving a higher rating in inspection, with a 12% uplift in numbers of full daycare providers achieving good or outstanding.4 Similarly, evidence from the NDNA scheme e-Quality Counts, shows that participating nurseries report improvements in their Ofsted ratings. These schemes have an important part to play, particularly at a time of public spending restraint. 3.2.7 It should be noted that the Department for Education’s contract with the Primary National Strategies to support the Early Years Foundation Stage ends in March 2011. There is also uncertainty over the future level of resources and support local authorities will be able to devote to their quality improvement role, given the current fiscal climate. As discussed above, it would be unrealistic to expect Ofsted to be the sole driver for quality improvement in early years provision and it is crucial that investment continues here, to ensure the quality gains of recent years, and consequent achievement of better outcomes for children, are not lost. 3.2.8 We would also ask that the Committee considers the role of inspection notice periods in determining the impact of inspection for children, the early years workforce and for settings. 3.2.9 The issue of notice periods for inspections is a long-standing concern for the nursery sector. Our concerns rest on variable practices by Ofsted in relation to the notice period given to nursery and other “non- domestic” childcare provision, as opposed to that given to Children’s Centres and nursery classes in primary schools. We support fully Ofsted’s principle that routine inspection should be at little or no notice and that where there is any possible cause for concern, complaints and enforcement visits should be at no notice. However, in practice the only category of provision subject to routine inspection at no notice is private and voluntary “non-domestic” childcare, with short notice given to all other types of provision for under-fives. 3.2.10 We see no reason why “no notice” inspection could not be applied to nursery schools and Children’s Centres. We understand there are logistical issues to overcome regarding childminders and nursery classes in primary schools, however, we believe these could be addressed by new inspection planning procedures. Alternatively, it would be possible to introduce a policy of short notice for all early years provision. We do not believe that a level playing field here would compromise inspection, but would support inspection to be more efficient and effective, by enabling providers to ensure key leadership staff were available to engage in the inspection. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w227

3.2.11 Nurseries are largely of the opinion that this is an equality issue, with the private and voluntary sector being treated less favourably than the maintained sector, and is a contributory factor to the higher proportion of outstanding ratings attained in the maintained sector. We have raised these concerns with Ofsted formally. We have been advised that Ofsted’s Executive Board proposes consideration to be given to inspection notice as part of any forthcoming revisions to the inspection framework following the current review by the Department for Education of the Early Years Foundation Stage.

3.3 The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 3.3.1 A survey of our members found that their overall experience of inspection is generally positive, with a majority rating the inspection process as supportive.5 3.3.2 A common concern among our members is the level of expertise in early years of their inspector. Seventy-five percent of our members rate inspectors “very” knowledgeable about early years, however, a significant minority of 25% rate inspectors “slightly” knowledgeable. 5 Given the potential impact of inspection on their provision for children, their staff and their businesses, early years providers should be inspected by qualified and experienced inspectors who have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of child development and early years good practice. Most inspectors are felt to comply with this standard, however, in a significant minority, providers feel inspectors do not reach these standards. We understand Ofsted is moving to address this issue, and it will be important that outsourced inspections are conducted by appropriately qualified and experienced people. 3.3.3 With the move to outsourced inspections, Ofsted has also introduced an opportunity for providers to feedback on the quality of their inspection after every inspection. This is a welcome development and we would hope to see this performance data shared so the sector can understand and respond to the quality of inspection it receives. 3.3.4 In 2008 Ofsted introduced a self evaluation approach to early years inspection. The voluntary completion of an Ofsted Self Evaluation Form (SEF) by providers has been central to this. Whilst we welcome the move to self evaluation as a way to support quality improvement, nurseries have reported to us a significant level of frustration with the SEF. The main problems are: the length, repetition and unwieldy nature of the SEF, the usability of the web-based system that hosts each provider’s SEF and feeling the time taken to complete and update the SEF does not have an equivalent impact on improving and developing the nursery. This has been a common theme at our member events, conferences and in feedback to our staff. 3.3.5 We understand that Ofsted is continuing to make improvements to the SEF form and guidance and is surveying good practice in self-evaluation and we have offered support and advice here, including the opportunity to consult with our nursery members. It is important that adjustments to the SEF process are made so it provides a positive contribution to quality improvement, rather than being seen as an additional administrative burden on providers.

3.4 The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 3.4.1 Feedback from our members is that overall 80% agree with their Ofsted inspection judgment, however, 20% disagree.5 This survey evidence is supported by anecdotal feedback to NDNA where members raise concerns with us over their experience of inspection. 3.4.2 It is vital that there is a fair and transparent appeals process for providers to address concerns over inspection. As discussed above, an inspection judgment can stay with a nursery for several years and has a major impact on the setting. Ofsted has a clear complaints process, and there must be a balance between protecting the rights of providers to fair inspection and avoiding a scenario where vexatious complaints could reduce the effectiveness of the inspection process. Areas that could be addressed include: — Avoiding conflicts of interest, for example, if the inspector has a past link with an organization. This is also an issue where multi-site nurseries have had problematic inspections and the same inspector inspects sister nurseries. — Communication—we welcome Ofsted’s code of conduct for inspectors and would encourage wide communication on this to childcare providers so they are aware of what to expect. — Reviewing the point at which inspection reports are published—presently these will be published on Ofsted’s website even if they are under dispute. Nurseries disputing an inspection outcome question their rights regarding the publication of the inspection report, particularly if a complaint is not yet resolved. An approach is needed to balance the risk of unfounded complaints from poor childcare providers preventing publication of reports, with the rights of the provider where there is a genuine cause for complaint and potential review of the inspection. We would propose allowing for a delay in publication or considering adding a comment to the website that shows the report’s unconfirmed status. 3.4.3 The Report of the Independent Complaints Adjudicator for Ofsted 2009 echoes some of the points above regarding conflicts of interest and communication.6 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w228 Education Committee: Evidence

3.4.4 Given the role of local authorities in supporting and driving quality in early years settings, as discussed above (3.3), there can be a tension between local authority guidance and Ofsted inspections which leaves nurseries in a difficult position. When asked about consistency between Ofsted recommendations and local authority advice, our members have mixed experiences with inconsistencies reported: 65% agree that they got a united message from Ofsted and the local authority, 18% disagreed and 17% didn’t know.5 Nurseries also report these issues to us anecdotally. We have discussed these concerns with Ofsted and we understand that a “link” inspector is being appointed for each local authority area to liaise. We hope this will be an effective way to address situations where significant, repeated discrepancies arise between Ofsted and local authorities. We would also urge that a clear process is put in place by Ofsted and local authorities to set out how early years providers should address these conflicts when they arise.

3.5 The weight given to different factors within the inspection process We believe the weighting between factors in the early years inspection is appropriate and would not propose any major change.

3.6 Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children's learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate All settings registered under the Early Years Foundation Stage, whether schools or early years settings, should be inspected by a single inspectorate to ensure consistency. October 2010

References 1 Quality of Childcare as at June 2010, Ofsted. 2 Raising Standards, Improving Lives; Ofsted Strategic Plan 2007–2010. 3 Quality of Childcare as at 30 September 2006, Ofsted. 4 Early Years: Leading to Excellence; Ofsted 2008. 5 NDNA survey—2009. 6 Independent Complaints Adjudicator for Ofsted—Report January 2008 to April 2009.

Memorandum submitted by the Girls’ Schools Association 1. This response is submitted on behalf of the Girls’ Schools Association (GSA), the professional association representing heads of girls’ independent schools in the UK. It is a not-for-proﬁt organisation. The majority of our members’ schools are inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) with some members inspected by Estyn and HMIE respectively. GSA is a constituent member of the Independent Schools Council (ISC).

2. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 2.1.1. This is a fundamental point that we consider requires discussion with colleagues from across the education sector as a whole. Inspection is currently largely a product of education law, in the case of independent schools the Independent School Standards. Reform of the inspection regime should go hand in hand with reform of the regulations. 2.1.2. The purpose of inspection has two aspects. Firstly to check whether or not a school meets the standards and secondly to promote school improvement. GSA believes these two distinct aspects should be dealt with separately. School improvement should rightly be in the domain of teaching professionals. 2.1.3. The role of inspection should be limited to checking that a school has an effective plan for review and improvement and to pick up on any signiﬁcant cause for concern. It should not in our view be to grade or create a league table of schools. 2.1.4. GSA welcomes the Secretary of State’s intention to focus inspection on four principal areas thus removing the duty for inspectors to monitor compliance on peripheral areas and therefore allowing inspectors to focus on the areas which have greatest impact on improvement.

3. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 3.1.1. School improvement has been argued as a core function of inspection. A school needs time to develop and review. School leaders and inspectors still need mechanisms that clearly outline the school’s understanding of its strengths and weaknesses and what it needs to do to improve. 3.1.2. Removal of some form of SEF is a lost opportunity for schools to authentically describe their strengths and areas for development. However we would welcome a mechanism that is more streamlined and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w229

ﬁt for purpose that does not impact negatively on progress in schools, limits expectations, stiﬂes innovation or inhibits responsiveness to individual or local needs. 3.1.3. Preparation for inspection takes away from a school’s core activity rather improving the core activity.

4. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 4.1.1. Appropriate methods of accountability should be implemented.

5. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 5.1.1. Independence and objectivity of inspections teams is paramount in any inspection service. People undertaking inspections should be competent and efﬁcient. There should be consistency in quality and interpretation of the inspection framework by Reporting and Lead Inspectors. 5.1.2. The use of peer review in ISI framework is very beneﬁcial to both the inspected and inspectors who themselves learn a great deal through the exercise which they can take back to inform practice in their own schools.

6. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 6.1.1. There is increasing disquiet concerning the heavier inspection regime for independent schools. Future inspection processes should have less State involvement and be less prescriptive.

7. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 7.1.1. GSA would favour a choice of inspectorates demonstrating technical proﬁciency, independence and objectivity to inspect the diverse range of settings and services supporting children’s learning and welfare in the 21st Century. 7.1.2. For the purposes of inspection of all inspection elements of GSA schools our preferred inspectorate is the Independent Schools Inspectorate.

8. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 8.1.1. GSA believes that independent schools should be permitted signiﬁcantly greater freedom than maintained schools, including publicly funded independent schools. 8.1.2. Where parents have exercised their right to educate their children independently of the state, the role of the Department should be limited to strategic overview and setting the minimum standards which protects the right of children to be safe and receive adequate education. 8.1.3. Any new inspection process to be developed should be no more onerous for either the maintained or independent sectors. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Local Government Group The Local Government Group is made up of six organisations that work together to support, promote and improve local government. Local Government Leadership Local Government Association Local Government Improvement and Development Local Government Employers Local Government Regulation Local Partnerships.

The Local Government Association The Local Government Association is the single voice for local government. As a voluntary membership body, funded almost entirely by the subscriptions of our 422 member authorities in England and Wales, we lobby and campaign for changes in policy and legislation on behalf of our member councils and the people and communities they serve. We work with and on behalf of our membership to deliver our shared vision of an independent and conﬁdent local government sector, where local priorities drive public service improvement in every city, town and village and every councillor acts as a champion for their ward and for the people they represent. www.local.gov.uk/association cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w230 Education Committee: Evidence

Part I—The Ofsted Role in Children’s Services Ofsted’s current role in inspecting children’s services 1. Ofsted is currently under a statutory duty204 to provide an annual assessment of performance for each council’s children’s services—this includes the full and integrated range of services from education to specialist services such as looked after children. Ofsted also leads a programme of inspection of safeguarding services and services for looked after children. It can also undertake inspections on its own initiative, or triggered by a direction from the Secretary of State. 2. However, we believe that the future role of Ofsted in inspecting and assessing children’s services needs to be seen within the context of the new coalition Government’s commitment to replace the current top-down approach to managing the performance of local public services with stronger accountability to local people and communities.

The Local Government Group’s proposals for a new performance framework for local public services 3. The Government has already dismantled significant components of the current performance framework. Public Service Agreements have been abolished and a number of national indicators have been removed. The Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) has been brought to an end, the Audit Commission will be disbanded and the Government Offices for the Regions will be abolished. These steps represent a radically different approach to performance management and hold significant implications for the future of the remaining Inspectorates—including Ofsted. 4. We have welcomed this new Government approach to the performance management of local public services and we are currently consulting councils on a new approach to self-regulation. We are keen to make sure that any new approach is “owned” by local councils and is based on a coherent set of principles and approaches that is shared by all the bodies inspecting local public services. The consultation paper205 is attached as an Appendix to this submission. 5. Key elements of the new approach on which we are consulting include: — Stronger accountability to the public through greater transparency. Councils would make the performance management information they use to manage their own performance available to the public in a format that local people can understand and use. This will enable local people to hold their council to account and compare their performance against other councils; — Self awareness. Councils and local partners will develop stronger local arrangements for monitoring and assessing their own performance through regular self evaluation and peer challenge. An annual self evaluation (encompassing services to vulnerable children and adults) would provide the basis for an annual report to local people about the quality of life of the area. The local government sector will collaborate to support councils through sharing best practice, peer review206 and support, benchmarking, etc. — Managing the risk of failure. The Local Government Group and its performance partners will work with the inspection and regulatory bodies to draw on data to provide “early warning” of potential major financial, governance or performance failure so that preventative support can be provided and service failure avoided. — As a result of these proposals the burden of assessment and inspection can be further reduced. — The current plethora of data returns and information requirements should be scaled back. Councils spend as much responding to Government and inspectorate requests for data as they do responding to inspection. The onus in future should be on reporting to local people. — Further reductions in the burden of inspection and assessment need to be made. Currently, Local Government Group continues to receive examples from councils where multiple inspections are taking place simultaneously and requiring the input of council officers for multiple purposes. Inspection (and/or intervention) should, in future, only to be triggered once the local government sector has had the opportunity to support areas facing performance challenges. — Statutory financial audit would continue, addressing financial resilience, value for money, probity and the reliability of local data. 6. The consultation paper explicitly recognises the importance of specific reassurance around children’s and adult services, and particularly safeguarding. So it includes the question: Is there still a need for inspection for adult and child safeguarding, or is a more robust approach to self assessment and peer challenge sufficient? 204 Education and Inspections Act 2006 205 Sector Self-Regulation and Improvement: Consultation Document LG Group, September 2010 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/ 13733907—Not published on the Committee’s website. 206 Peer review is the process by which councils invite a small team of members and officers drawn from other authorities (and, as appropriate, from other sectors such as health, police, voluntary and community sector) to review their leadership and corporate capacity or other element of their service provision and give constructive challenge and advice on how to further strengthen what they do. Our experience is that peer reviews are a successful improvement tool and the Local Government Group has long experience of delivering a wide variety of reviews. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w231

We have asked for responses by 1 November, so would be able to update the Select Committee on the response if asked to give oral evidence.

A new approach to assessment of children’s services 7. Building on these principles, and subject to the proviso that we are still awaiting the views of councils on the issue of safeguarding, we propose a new approach to the assessment and inspection of children’s services. We believe this is necessary to support the current drive to reduce inspection burdens on councils and to correct the current emphasis given to publicly highlighting weakness, as opposed to supporting improvement. Key elements of this approach would include: 8. Ending the annual rating of children’s services. The majority of councils’ children’s services are already performing well or excellently, so there are diminishing returns from continuing annual assessment. The current process requires reform in any event to reﬂect the changes to the nature of Children’s Trusts and the removal of a requirement for a Children and Young People’s Plan recently announced by the Government. 9. Establishing a regular process of local self assessment. This would be led by the Director of Children’s services and involve the other partners in the local children's services partnership, building on the Local Safeguarding Children Board’s (LSCB) report on the effectiveness of local safeguarding arrangements. The results of the assessments would be reported to local people. 10. Replacing Ofsted’s programme of inspecting safeguarding services and services for looked-after children with self assessment and peer review. The current annual unannounced inspection of local authority contact, assessment and referral centres have been criticised by councils for placing too much reliance on data at the expense of direct engagement with local safeguarding teams. There are also concerns at the knowledge and direct experience of safeguarding of inspectors. We propose that these inspections, and inspections of services for looked-after children, should be replaced by self assessment, backed up by short notice multi-agency peer reviews. These peer reviews would focus on driving improvement and would include councillors and ofﬁcers from an outside authority, supported by practitioners from other agencies involved in child protection. 11. Ofsted would retain its statutory powers to inspect where it believed it was necessary or where instructed to do so by the Secretary of State. However inspection is one of a number of potential responses to the risk of underperformance and Government has acknowledged the importance of councils’ ownership of their own improvement. In this context we propose a new “dual key” arrangement involving the Inspectorates and the Local Government Group to authorise any inspection involving a council or council services—following joint consideration of alternative responses e.g. peer support.

Part II—The Ofsted Role in SchoolImprovement The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy 12. In a letter to councils’ Lead Members for Children's Services on 26 May Rt. Hon. Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education, said “Strong local authorities are central to our plans to improve education. The Coalition Government has partnership at its heart and I want to work in partnership with local authorities to drive up standards for all children in all schools.”207 13. In our report Local freedom or central control?208 we proposed a new role for councils, as active commissioners of education provision in their areas. Central to these proposals is a stronger role for councils in monitoring school performance and constantly challenging all local schools to improve. 14. In response, the Secretary of State has established a Ministerial Advisory Group to consider the council role in education. The outcomes of the work of the Group are expected to be included in the forthcoming education white paper. They will impact on the role of local authorities in school improvement, in commissioning services for children and young people and in work with vulnerable groups and children who are excluded from school. The results are therefore likely to have a signiﬁcant impact on the local authority role and the role of school inspection in the future. 15. We see councils as having a key responsibility at a local level in championing the interests of local parents and children and providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy. But councils will only be able to play this role effectively if they have access to accurate and timely information about school performance. 16. So we support the continuation of institutional inspections of schools. However, in our discussions in the Ministerial Advisory Group we are proposing that if councils are to have a strategic role in driving continuous school improvement, they will need to have powers to ask for an inspection of a school to be carried out where they are concerned about educational standards. Such action could come in response to concerns expressed by parents, teachers or schools themselves, or issues that are giving rise to concern such as a high turnover of staff, loss of senior staff or a signiﬁcant dip in results. The Secretary of State would also retain powers to initiate inspections where there are concerns. 207 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/publications/documents/laeImportantmessagefromthesecretaryofstate/ 208 Local freedom or central control? Why councils have an important role to play in local education July 2010 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/12296454 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w232 Education Committee: Evidence

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 17. We believe that the inspection process has supported school improvement. It is the framework for inspection, as much as the inspection itself that has added value through the sharing of the tools used to support evaluation. The “raising of the bar” through successive frameworks has sharpened the focus of schools as they strive to be self-improving. The result has been to up-skill schools in their ability to review their own provision against a series of “quality indicators”.

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 18. Ofsted’s wide remit should not be confused with the undoubted need to ensure that inspectors assessing particular aspects of service delivery or planning should be highly trained and familiar with that area. 19. The consistency across teams is still an issue. Schools are still experiencing variety in how inspections are carried out. The best inspection teams are those that are prepared to engage in a constructive dialogue with the school. Inconsistencies remain in relation to the knowledge and skills of the individual teams. For some inspectors there remains an over reliance on data, particularly those who lack the experience to “get behind” the ﬁgures and understand what the school is really achieving. However, we acknowledge that Ofsted has recognised this as an issue and made efforts to improve inspectors’ training and inspection quality.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 20. There continues to be an over-emphasis on levels of attainment rather than achievement and subsequent ’knock on’ effect upon other judgements, such as leadership and management. The inspection process should give greater credit to those institutions which demonstrate good or outstanding learning and progress even if they are still below national averages for attainment. 21. Not enough emphasis is placed on good governance. Ofsted seem to ﬁnd this a difﬁcult judgement to make. Perhaps Ofsted should put greater weight on pupil and parent views and the local authority may have a role to play in this regard. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 22. The Local Government Group has consistently argued that there should be a single inspectorate with a remit across all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare. We believe this is important because, on the ground, frontline services for children and young people are required to act in concert to ensure effective provision and outcomes—it would be counter-productive for systemic or area wide improvement to have assessments made by a number of different inspectorates that do not liaise or learn from each other. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Department for Education Introduction The Coalition Government believes that it is time for a fundamental shift in decision making from central government to local communities. It is committed to promoting decentralisation and democratic engagement; reducing top-down government by giving new powers to local councils, communities, local services, neighbourhoods and individuals. These principles provide the context within which public service inspection needs to operate in future. Central to the Department’s early plans is the reform of the accountability system for schools, including the role of school inspection. We want to give parents a greater opportunity to send their children to a good school. Such schools should have strong discipline in the classroom, high standards, excellent teaching and effective and inspirational leadership. We also want to help parents, community groups and others come together to improve the education system by starting new schools. We will promote the reform of schools to enable new entrants to the state school system to respond to parental demand and to ensure that all schools are held properly to account.

Reforming Inspection We invest substantially in the delivery of education, training and services for children and young people. Inspection has an important role to play in providing assurance for service users, the public generally and the Government, about service quality and performance. But we see room to improve its direction and efﬁciency. We are committed to reforming inspection to focus on the things that really matter to local communities— recognising the achievements of the highest performers and freeing them from inspection burdens; and helping to address inequality and disadvantage and improve standards. We will move away from a universal approach, to one that targets inspection where it is most needed. Inspection will focus around the core aspects of services cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w233

and we will remove any unnecessary administrative processes, data collection and bureaucracy that get in the way of effective performance. Whilst our aim is to encourage greater local accountability, centrally supported, independent inspection can help service leaders, governors, local authorities and local communities to assess service effectiveness. Many parents look to independent inspection reports to enable them to make informed choices, for example, in deciding on schools for their children. Inspection information also supports and encourages local improvement and contributes to the analysis of policy effectiveness. Many of the services inspected by Ofsted cater for the needs of vulnerable children and young people. The higher risks associated with this group strengthen the case for continuing to inspect these services. Inspection must change, though, if it is to continue to help to improve the education system. That is why we have made clear already our intention to move to a more risk based and proportionate approach, giving freedoms from inspection to those schools and colleges that can demonstrate sustained high performance, and targeting inspection resources on others, particularly the weakest performers. Where there is failure, we will ensure that appropriate action is taken. Primarily, though, inspection will be to assure parents and others about their local services.

Inspection Principles We need an inspection system which: — focuses clearly on core issues; — is proportionate and targeted; — identifies failure, so that appropriate improvement action can be taken; — is consistently of a high standard and contributes strongly to improving services; — is transparent so that all who need to can understand the basis on which services are being judged; — minimises costs and burdens on service providers; — has the confidence of service providers, users and local communities; — draws on international evidence in presenting best practice and is recognised internationally for its methodologies and impact; — invites constructive challenge and listens to concerns; — responds appropriately to concerns raised by parents and others; and — subjects itself to independent evaluation of its impact. We want to retain powers to act more proportionately, so that inspection is focused on particular weaknesses or difficulties that we know persist. We also want inspection to drive improvement where local activity has not resolved the issue. The circumstances and types of intervention are still being considered, as are the triggers for it, but inspection will continue to be important for informing our intervention programme.

School InspectionReform The current school inspection system is too complex and its scope is too broad. That is why we intend to streamline it and target inspection on the core areas of achievement—teaching, leadership, behaviour and safety. We are taking these reforms forward in the forthcoming Education Bill and will outline the context and the specific proposals further in our first Education White Paper, which is due to be published before the end of the year. The Committee has asked about the role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools that will be operating with greater autonomy, in particular, for Free Schools and Academies. A greater freedom for schools does not mean freedom from accountability; all schools must still achieve high standards and be judged on the same basis in terms of their performance. It is for this reason that our intention is that Free Schools, along with other schools in the Academy family, will be inspected under the same section 5 arrangements as maintained schools. This will enable parents to compare the performance of all publicly funded schools on a consistent basis. A move to a more proportionate inspection system will bring greater autonomy for some schools, in that the highest performers will be freed altogether from routine inspection by Ofsted. That freedom will remain as long as they maintain their performance and the confidence of parents. These schools will continue to be subject to regular risk assessment by Ofsted. They will also be in scope for Ofsted’s thematic and subject survey visits, which will provide a picture of best practice which can be shared with other schools. Information from such visits and any concerns raised by parents about the provision and outcomes for pupils, will also contribute to Ofsted’s risk assessment.

Performance of Ofsted inCarryingOut itsWork Any inspection system needs to inspire conﬁdence. The changes we are making are intended to help to achieve that. Ensuring that inspection is focused on areas of greatest importance and that unnecessary work is cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w234 Education Committee: Evidence

stopped will enhance its value. Ofsted conducts many thousands of inspections every year and has a longstanding track record of delivery. The consequences of inspection, particularly for those services which fail, mean that, inevitably, there will be criticism. By ensuring that inspection covers the right things, uses appropriate methodologies and is delivered consistently to a high standard, we can build even greater confidence in it. The Select Committee’s role is important in holding Ofsted to account for its performance. We welcome this and look forward to the conclusions of this particular inquiry, to assist the Government in taking decisions about future inspection and wider accountability arrangements. The Committee will be aware of two external reviews; the Munro review of child protection and the Tickell review of the Early Years Foundation Stage. Both will inform future thinking about Ofsted’s work. We will make announcements in due course, in the light of the conclusions from these reviews, about changes to related inspection approaches. HM Chief Inspector is responsible overall for the effective and efficient delivery of Ofsted’s regulatory and inspection systems. Ofsted’s Board, established in April 2007, has a statutory responsibility to hold the Chief Inspector to account for the way in which she discharges her functions. We are in the process of appointing a new non-executive Chair and will be looking to the Chair and the Board to ensure that this aspect of their remit is given appropriate priority. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 sets out the requirements of Ofsted and HM Chief Inspector, with regard to their respective functions. It requires that the functions are conducted efficiently and effectively and in such a way as to encourage improvement. The Act also requires HM Chief Inspector to ensure that inspectors, including those contracted, have the necessary qualifications, experience and skills to enable them to perform their inspection duties in an effective manner. These requirements are fundamental to a robust and credible inspection system that helps to raise standards and that enjoys the confidence of front-line staff and the public. We believe that many of the criticisms of the current school inspection system stem from the fact that the framework generates too many detailed judgments, obscuring central messages. Currently, at least 27 judgments are made on all schools—more for those with sixth forms or early years provision. That is why we want a sharper focus on the core responsibilities of the school. A more streamlined approach will reduce burdens and distractions on schools and should also mean that inspectors are better placed to deliver high quality inspections, covering the areas that matter most. We plan to achieve this by asking Ofsted to reorganise school inspection reports under four key judgments. An increased focus on direct observation of professional practice, the teaching of pupils in the classroom and the support to children through social care services, will require inspectors of a high calibre and an up to date understanding of policy and practice. We are working with Ofsted on the requirements and will look to the Chief Inspector to ensure that all inspectors are suitably qualified and experienced. Our commitment to less central prescription is demonstrated by the Secretary of State’s announcement, on 23 September, that the school self evaluation form will be abolished next year. Not only will this save considerable time for schools, it will also enable school leaders to develop their own innovative approaches to evaluating their performance.

ASingleInspectorate The report by the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, in January, acknowledged the importance of being alert to any sign that the growth of Ofsted's responsibilities might cause it to become unwieldy. The creation of the new Ofsted provided the opportunity to develop more integrated approaches to reflect the way in which services for children, young people and students were delivered. Many providers that had previously been subject to separate inspections by different inspectorates have seen a move to more joined up and integrated inspections. The unification into a single inspectorate, of previously separate inspection functions, has also produced a significant efficiency dividend, with overall inspection cost reductions of up to 30 per cent. We know however that the creation of the new Ofsted has not been universally popular and has brought some criticism in terms of the approach taken in inspecting some services. There has also been some concern expressed from those inspected that Ofsted should do more to advise on improvement, in the light of its findings. All of this needs to be addressed in the context of significant financial constraint and the need to maximise the value of inspection investment. The work we are doing to streamline and refocus inspection activity, making it more proportionate, will help to ensure that we can cover adequately all the areas of greatest concern, despite the financial pressures. There are many factors to take into account as we move forwards and continue to keep inspection policy under review and assess, in the light of full information, whether there should be further structural reform relating to Ofsted’s current remit. Key considerations include: — whether any of the functions could be delivered more effectively and efficiently by another body; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w235

— the implications for providers, e.g. some currently experience joined up inspection of different services which might otherwise be separate and therefore increase the costs and burdens on providers; — the costs of transitional arrangements and setting up new structures; and — the potential impact on the implementation of the core business of inspection and regulation. As we implement inspection reforms, we will be careful to ensure that no area of importance is neglected. We want to consider our options in full, along with the ﬁndings from the external reviews already underway and the ﬁndings from the Select Committee inquiry, as part of any further consideration about the role of the inspectorate.

Impact of Inspection on School Improvement It has always been difﬁcult to separate and make distinct the role of inspection from other factors that contribute to school improvement. What is clear is that inspection has the most impact where there is greatest need. Sharply focused and robust recommendations on what a school needs to do to improve are also important. We believe that streamlining inspection will help to bring clarity to how it can best support an improvement in standards. The model of regular monitoring visits, which is used for schools in special measures, is often acknowledged by schools as being one where inspectors are of most beneﬁt to them. We are interested in exploring whether there is scope to develop this model to strengthen the contribution of inspection to improvement in schools. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Education, University of London

The Institute of Education 1. The Institute of Education is the UK’s leading centre for education research and one of the world’s leading such centres. Over the past two decades its research has contributed to policy development in a number of critical areas. In relation to Ofsted, Institute staff have undertaken a variety of research projects on the nature, scope and impact of inspection, in particular on the relationship between inspection and school and system improvement.

Introduction 2. Ofsted was created in order to: — ensure that inspection was consistent across the country; — to provide accountability, especially to parents, as the local authority role receded; — to drive improvement; and — to shift what could be a 'cosy' relationship between local teams and the head teachers from whose ranks they had often emerged. In these respects, Ofsted has contributed to some very positive changes in the English education system—it is easy to forget how variable provision was 25 years ago. In the process, the work of Ofsted has provided a critical source of ﬁne-grained knowledge about schools and other elements of the education system and wider children’s services. However, the signiﬁcant contribution that inspection has made to system development should not obscure its limitations.

IssuesRaised byInspection 3. Inspection services are expensive, so it is important to ensure that they are effective—in terms of providing an accurate picture of provision and having a positive impact on the effectiveness of that provision. The hidden costs of inspection include: — compliance costs—staff time and other resources devoted to preparing and managing inspections; — opportunity costs—beneﬁcial activities overtaken by preparation and management of inspections; — avoidance costs—the costs of circumventing inspection or mitigating its effects; — displacement costs—activity becoming skewed towards what is inspected; — innovation costs—compliance making institutions more conservative and risk-averse; and — morale costs—the impact of being checked up on and the workload involved (see Davis et al, 2001 and 2008 on the nature and impact of public service inspection). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w236 Education Committee: Evidence

UnderlyingAssumptions 4. The English inspection model, which is influential throughout the world, rests on three assumptions: — hat external inspection against a published framework provides an independent measure of institutional effectiveness; — that this institutional effectiveness is best explored through what might be described as qualitative investigation drawing on the “informed connoisseurship” of experienced observers; and — that individual inspection findings can be aggregated to provide a view of system effectiveness. These assumptions influence the way policy-makers and practitioners think about the inspection process and its outcomes. Each is worthy of further investigation. 5. As with any regulatory structure, the Ofsted inspection framework is susceptible to gaming: some of the schools rated by Ofsted as “outstanding” may simply have become adept at negotiating inspection processes. 6. The focus of Ofsted on school-level accountability measures ignores the fact that within school variation is a greater challenge for system improvement than between school variation. There can be marked variations within outstanding schools. 7. These features are problematic in themselves. They have become more significant given the increasing use that is being made of Ofsted inspection outcomes as a basis for policy decisions. For example, schools with “outstanding” Ofsted grades are being regarded as pre-approved for Academy status, and are to be exempt from further inspection unless there is other evidence that their performance has dipped. It is impossible for any system to design in 100% reliability; while the reliability of Ofsted inspections has improved over the past decade, there remains a concern that the inspection process is being asked to bear too great a weight in policy development. 8. The inspection of individual institutions and local authorities generates only one sort of system knowledge—inductive, localised and judgemental. Work undertaken by Ofsted outside school inspection is more effective in generating the kind of information about system trends and development (e.g. in relation to subjects or phases) that can usefully inform policy.

The Impact on Schools 9. There is no doubt that Ofsted inspection has impacted on the behaviour of schools and local authorities in a number of respects. In effect, inspection frameworks have served as compliance models that have driven decision-making and managerial action—whether in relation to, for example, assumptions about the relationship between teacher strategies and pupil learning, between school- and extra-school actions, or the ways local authorities have developed local improvement strategies. The power of Ofsted in driving behavioural change in schools should not be under-estimated. 10. One would not expect regulatory frameworks to reflect up-to-date research knowledge, but where they exert a powerful influence on behaviour they may act as a brake on the adoption of desirable practices. In this sense, inspection both raises the floor and lowers the ceiling. To illustrate: we know from international research (notably Viviane Robinson’s 2008 Best Evidence Synthesis on school leadership) that the strongest effect size of head teacher leadership is in promoting and participating in teacher development. However, the current Ofsted framework is patchy in its discussion of professional learning. The Leadership and Management section does not mention professional development at all, only visioning, planning, target setting and monitoring. 11. We need to understand more clearly how improvement is achieved in practice, the ways in which inspection regimes can contribute to improvement by complementing internal drivers of change, and how effectively inspection regimes interact with each other and with other policy instruments. 12. There is a research tradition (eg MacBeath, 2006) that suggests that self-evaluation is a stronger driver for successful, local change than external inspection. Ofsted recognised the importance of self-evaluation and required schools to complete a self-evaluation form (SEF). However, the SEF itself became subject to compliance processes, meaning that schools needed to provide extensive data for Ofsted, which consumed a considerable amount of senior staff time. In September 2010 the DfE announced that, in order to reduce bureaucracy in schools, schools would no longer be required to complete a SEF. This illustrates the way in which an initiative that is itself a good can become corrupted by compliance approaches.

AContrastingExample 13. An interesting example of a contrasting approach to school inspection is provided by the system employed in the Netherlands. 14. Dutch schools are inspected annually and an inspection lasts between half a day and one day. Inspectors have responsibility for about 100 primary schools or 40 secondary schools and each school will know its inspectors. There is therefore a continuing relationship between the school and its inspector. The inspection framework includes aspects of the teaching/learning process, the school’s results and the school organizational conditions (e.g. policies and processes). Inspection ﬁndings are published. When a Dutch school is deemed to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w237

be failing or underperforming, the inspectorate can only take action if the school does not comply with the legal regulations. Whereas action plans are obligatory in England, and follow-up school visits in cases of school underperformance take place regularly, this is not always the case in the Netherlands, as recent research from the Institute suggests (Earley and Chapman, 2010).

Concluding Comments 15. We now have almost two decades worth of experience of the impact of regular inspection on the school system. Over that period, and parallel to it, schools have become more self-conﬁdent about their autonomy and more expert in their own local management. In reﬂecting on that experience we would make the following observations about priorities for the future: — inspection needs to take more account of context and local priorities, though must at the same time avoid becoming patchy and idiosyncratic, especially given the current government’s proposals in relation to the structure of the school system — inspection regimes need to do more to discourage conformity and acknowledge appropriate risk- taking; — policy-makers need to achieve a greater balance between the demand for “early wins” and the pressure for long-term, “transformational” change, and between spending on external inspection and investment in new capacity building; — inspectorates should focus their efforts on those most in need of improvement, but they should not ignore the importance of intra-institutional variation; — inspection regimes must address the accusation that external inspection tends to focus on style over substance; and — in order to promote an outcomes focus there is a need to develop more rigorous performance measures at both local and national level. Prepared by Professor Chris Husbands, with contributions from Professors Louise Stoll, Peter Earley and Denis Mongon. October 2010

References Davis, H and Martin, S (eds) (2008) Public Services Inspection in the UK, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Davis, H, Downe, J and Martin, S (2001) The Impact of External Inspection on Local Government—Delivering Improvement or Drowning in Detail?, London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Earley, P and Chapman, C (2010) School Inspection/External School Evaluation International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 3, 719–725. MacBeath, J (2006) School Inspection and Self-evaluation: Working with the New Relationship, London: Routledge Falmer. Robinson, V (2008) School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying what works and why (New Zealand, Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]). http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_ﬁle/0015/60180/BES-Leadership-Web.pdf

Memorandum submitted by East Riding of Yorkshire Council No local authority and school rejects being scrutinised rigorously and robustly to deliver good outcomes for children and young people but we have concerns about the consistent application of the framework from inspector to inspector. Why can OFSTED not make inspections more consistent and in some cases transparent as the framework and the practices enshrined with in the latest schedule suggest? Inspectors still seem to be placing a disproportionate emphasis on boundaries and fences and not evaluating absolute risk—Will the new framework allow sensible and pragmatic responses to become a part of the inspection process rather than an obsession with six foot tall galvanised fences surrounding rural schools with only ﬁelds surrounding them? The questionnaires and proformas used by inspectors sometimes seem to invite criticism rather than honest evaluation—certainly children in primary schools—who deﬁne bullying in a very unsophisticated way—seem to be almost encouraged to identify themselves as victims. Will the OFSTED review look carefully at revising the questionnaire in line with the age and stage of development of the children? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w238 Education Committee: Evidence

The parental response to questionnaires is important but at times the number of the returns and the statistical signiﬁcance of the returns seem to be ignored by inspectors in order to prove something for which there is no evidence. In a recent inspection 50 parental returns from a 371 pupil school (presumably 321 are content with the school) 19 of which, still a minority of the returns made, cited poor behaviour as an issue, in a two day visit where only one example of poor behaviour was seen—was judged to be a reason for a special measures judgement? What is the burden of proof required to make that judgement—and how do you ratify that judgement from a distance when the evidence is only shared with you through the lens of the inspector's eyes? The frequency of inspections and the cost of these are issues that concern many people? Why has the cycle been moved from six years to three and have standards risen because of this? Schools which are federated under one Headteacher and one governing body are still inspected separately— why? Doesn’t this act as a disincentive to schools working collaboratively? October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Reading Borough Council What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) Currently not clear Should be: — being advocate for child; — quality assurance; — value for money; — outcomes for children—national perspective; — identify content of curriculum delivery / style on outcomes; — consistency around quality assurance/vulnerable groups; — every child matters and individual needs of each youngster—providing highest quality provision; — reviewing/evaluating impact of each individual school making them accountable/challenging; — accountability hold schools accountable for public purse; and — national consistency. Local Authority inspection: — A more formative process would be more useful. There need to be more links back between inspection and Improvement; inspection should look at learning and improvement over time. At present it is difﬁcult to see if any improvement has been made as the bar to reach keeps being raised. It would be helpful to have the same set of people doing inspections and providing follow- up support as in the current schools model. — Needs to be more of a partnership inspection—those LAs who have been inspected recently feel that the inspection almost completely focuses on children’s social care services. Partners only feel peripherally engaged. Senior managers from partner organisations should be invited to start and end of inspection visit and there should be a visit to police CP teams to match visits to referral and assessment and A and E teams. — There should only be one inspection service for children ie not separate inspections for YOS and youth services. — Ofsted needs to catch up with changing role of authorities and expectations of DFE, the model needs to change quickly, e.g. new emphasis on Local Authorities as Commissioners as opposed to providers. Schools Feedback: — Ofsted to take on a more forensic approach similar to that in the Safeguarding inspections ie look at exclusions or NEET by scrutinising ﬁles. We believe Ofsted should explore in detail case studies of the last two excluded pupils and two NEET students. General points — Why have a monopoly on inspections? If we are clear in what we want—schools or local authorities could commission inspections from a framework agreement which has vetted providers which could add energy and bring down costs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w239

— There is great value of peer involvement in inspection for both schools and local authorities. We would like to see peers as part of teams. — There is also value of involvement of children and families in inspection, we would like to consider how this might be achieved.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement — Not always positive—distracts from improvement—wrong direction. — Process and planning positive mandate with staff as to what has to be done—positive driver—after judgement gives direction and plan for the future. — Window dressing—not sure what goes on behind the scenes. — Process more important than inspection itself. — Depends on leadership within school as to whether it is positive or negative. — Best validates self evaluation ensures that schools are evaluating their work. — Without it—where would we be?

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work — Quite weak—number of gaping holes in terms of equalities—poor performance. — Failure to carry out statutory duties in terms of equalities. — Depends on team you get. — Concern for lack of specialist knowledge—in range of areas including SEN, early years. — Range of issues that are priorities but Ofsted behind the times to focus on these areas. — Independence detracting from performance. — Too many changes. — HMCI report when issued (Nov) inspections then follow don’t appear to systematically pick up issues highlighted in the issued report.

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process — Inconsistent. — Specialist teams—know what they are coming in to so they can understand the issues. — Within teams not necessarily various teams. — Not improved since gone out to three providers no noticeable difference—from schools perception or training provided. Taking in too many inspectors that are at too great a distance from schools. — Varies depending upon lead—are the readers checking the report is fresh or ﬁt for purpose.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process — Too focused on outcomes but measures not always appropriate. — When kids make progress at special schools acknowledgement that individuals have made huge progress and the learning with catch up—welcome challenge. — Individual interest and passion of inspectors. — Welcome limiting judgements—rigorous in experience. — Welcome fact now asking staff what they think in schools/involvement of parents and children. — Disagree about standards—have to give a weight but got balance wrong between progress and standards—different teams take different weightings (focus too much on achievement data in special schools). — Too much focus on safeguarding which has distorted leadership away from outcomes agenda (should be there but weighting is wrong).

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate — No. — Have specialists inspecting their own organisation.

The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy — Yes but perhaps part of the role of Ofsted should be investigating schools on behalf of parents not just educationalists—are things as they should be as per their statutory responsibilities. — Why are the inspections different for academy schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w240 Education Committee: Evidence

— All should be inspected to the same criteria. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Alan Quinn I wish to conﬁne my comments to the issue of Inspection of maintained schools. I was an Inspector of Schools, up to retirement in 2006, for 12 years. Prior to that I was a teacher for 30 years.

Summary — The purpose of inspections. — The impact of the inspection process on school improvement. — The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work. — The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. — Frequency, length and notice of inspections. — School assessments should not be used in an inspection. — Context Value Added is important in assessment of achievement. — Appropriateness of light-touch inspections. — A survey by me of a number of schools shows disparities in inspection judgements. Findings from 6 schools are included. — Accountability in the inspection process is dependent on reliability and consistency in making judgements. Responding to some questions provided by the Committee: 1. I would first question the assumption that OFSTED is independent of Government. It follows Government directives by incorporating them into the inspection process. Inspectors are obliged to avoid controversy, for example when considering the balance of a curriculum as prescribed by government, and stick to prescriptive criteria. The purpose of OFSTED is to judge standards effectively and consistently and so enable institutions to improve provision but the context of the inspections must relate to each school separately and allow inspectors flexibility. The process is too rigid. 2. Whatever its shortcomings the inspection process on school performance is a powerful influence on schools. Performance has greatly improved across the educational spectrum since the introduction of a national inspection system. Prior to 1994, many schools were hidden from effective scrutiny and the variations in practice were wide. There was very little co-ordination of expectations in standards or achievement. Now, however, the distinctions between schools’ performance are getting less clear. Generally there is little firm, clear evidence to support inspection judgements, particularly on Standards reached, except a school’s own self- assessments. It looks like there is grade inflation occurring because the evidence base is not sufficiently rigorous. Comments are often bland. Standards are a key judgement is grading a school’s effectiveness. This has developed a complacency in schools. They have, subtlety, taken over control of outcomes and judgements through the self-assessment procedures. Once endorsed by Ofsted, with an overall Grade 1 or 2 (now the most common) the school is “safe” and the drive for improvement can easily slacken. 3. The maximum gap between full inspections should be six years for high performing schools, with occasional monitoring visits, as necessary. Three years would be appropriate for most schools. Schools on “Notice to Improve” should be visited regularly. Section 5 inspections are generally too short and with too small a team of inspectors for a thorough review of a school’s performance. Notice of inspection should be no more than one day. Such inspections would be of the nature of “spot-checks”. This may determine whether and when a further fuller inspection is necessary. The subsequent inspection should be appropriate to the school’s size. Many schools with 1,000 or more on roll are inspected in two days. There is, consequently, insufficient time to address issues adequately. In the context of an inspection, the school’s own self-assessment should not be made known to the inspection team until an inspection is complete. Otherwise it will colour judgements. The extent to which it confirms or contradicts the inspection findings would be a significant piece of evidence on the school’s management and monitoring processes and would form part of the report’s findings. National tests are essential benchmarks but only if used to compare like with like. A school’s context will, by definition, play a major part in measuring any improvement in attainment but the weight applied to any factor needs to be agreed between school and inspection team. This would assist in the planning of an inspection. Value added to pupils’ performances is the key judgement to be made about a school’s performance. It needs to be measured between Key Stages and needs to follow the same cohort, as far as is reasonable. This is rarely the case. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w241

The light-touch inspections are appropriate for high-performing schools but criteria for identifying them should be agreed nationally. It is essential that inspection reports be in the public domain and easily accessible. The current Ofsted website is not assisting this process. Schools’ interpretations of reports, issued to the press and parents, are often misleading (see below in sample of three schools). Easy public access to original reports is therefore essential. 4. Outside the direct questions from the Committee I would like to outline some research I have carried out into the reliability of inspections. I have taken 6 schools from the sample (it may be appropriate not to identify them in any published material—I identify them here so that the facts may be veriﬁed if you so wish).209 The ﬁrst three are more detailed than the others. The inconsistencies are not untypical. They serve to suggest that quality of inspections is not always reliable and, thus, that some teams may not be adequate for the task. (See samples below)

1. Sample1 Inspection date; 25–26 September 2006 Overall Grade = 3 (satisfactory) Leadership & Management=3 Achievement & Standards=3 Special Needs = close to Nat. Av. Value Added = below average. Persistent absence = 8.3%. 20th/24 in Local Authority Ranking Quality of Teaching & Learning=3 Frequent staff changes. “Teachers plan lessons well and ensure (!?) pupils understand what they are expected to learn...... interesting lessons”. School is aware of the need to improve teaching to ensure that all pupils make “good progress...” GCSE 2006 A*–C = 22% GCSE 2007 A*–C = 19% A fall. This does not match the report’s ﬁndings and gradings. The report was carried out in September 2006. It is inaccurate—weaknesses in the system—inconsistencies in 2006. No improvement till 2008. No recommendation for “Special Measures” or “Notice to Improve”. Yet an Interim Monitoring visit took place on 14/12/07 which indicated “Satisfactory progress”. GCSE 2008 A*–C = 31% well below national average still but shows very good progress! This seems to be independent of the OFSTED reporting and monitoring system.

2. Sample2 Inspection date; 20–21 November 2007 Was placed in “Special Measures” in May 2007 Overall Effectiveness = 4 (inadequate) Leadership & Management=2 “L & M are now good” Achievement & Standards=4 Special needs = above Nat.Av but few requiring statements. Contextual Value Added = below average. Unauthorized absence = 3.9% (2007) Persistent absence = 9.7% (2008). 62nd/84 in LA Ranking. “...has made good progress since the last inspection” (my emphasis) Quality of Teaching & Learning=3 “...teaching and learning are now satisfactory overall” “Teaching is beginning to make a positive impact on students’ progress...” GCSE 2006 A*–C = 38% GCSE 2007 = 42% GCSE 2008 = 43% An insigniﬁcant rise. Recommendation for “Notice to Improve”. This took place on 20/11/07—school predicts/indicates a rise of 11 percentage points in GCSE 2008—not so! Just 1. 209 Schools not identiﬁed in published material on Committee website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w242 Education Committee: Evidence

This report is broadly in line with the evidence and gives a more accurate picture of the school’s performance. Contrast this with the report of the school cited above. However some of the judgements do not ﬁt. The school’s release however gave a different and misleading impression! Eg—“Unlike many other schools nationally a key feature of (this school’s) success is the impressive result achieved in English and mathematics”—53% and 60% A*–C(respectively).

3. Sample3 Inspection date; 30 September/1 October 2008 Overall Effectiveness = 2 (good) Leadership & Management=2 Achievement & Standards=2 Special needs are high but stated as of “low order”. Statemented nos. are below Nat.Av. Contextual Value Added = Nat.Av. Persistent absences = 13.4% (2008)—usually a valid indicator of management problems. This % is high. High mobility of pupils. 16th/16 in LA rankings. Standards are well below average. An inappropriate grade for standards. Quality of Teaching & Learning=2 “Teaching needs to be more focussed on assessing needs through effective questioning...... insufficient challenge and progress” An inappropriate grade for teaching. It should be noted that “Many students take longer to reach nationally expected grades at GCSE. They often continue into the 6th form, where they improve on lower grades...” GCSE 2006 A*–C = 19% (18% for those in the GCSE age range) GCSE 2007 = 26% (% not known) GCSE 2008 = 28% (25%) The school’s low performance in standards is not reflected in this report. The sample school No. 2 (above) could, justifiably, feel aggrieved at the disparity between these reports. The school claims it is an “excellent” report in its “News to pupils and parents”!

4. Sample4 Inspection date; 11–12 March 2009 Overall effectiveness=2 Achievement & Standards=2 “...standards are a little above average”. Progress and attendance are also issues. Teaching =2 “Letter to Pupils” says; “should check more regularly whether you are learning as well as similar students in the school...” and “work is not always matched well to different pupils” and, “the teacher...... doesn’t give you enough to do to ensure that you learn well” Three key points, yet an overall grade of “good”.

5. Sample5 Inspection date; 10–11 May 2010 Overall effectiveness = 3 (satis) Standards=3 Standards .. “now at national average” Teaching=3 Yet teaching is criticised; “the considerable variation in teaching is the reason why all groups of students... make satisfactory rather than better progress” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w243

This indicates how fewer grade boundaries now limit reﬁnement of judgements. In the previous Section 10 Inspections there were seven grades available. The above example suggests a Gd. 4 would have been awarded (unsatisfactory).

6. Sample6 Inspection date; 28–29 April 2010 Overall effectiveness=3 Teaching=3 “Teachers do not always take the opportunity to stretch students sufficiently or allow them to take on more responsibility for their own learning (?). The Quality of Teaching is not consistently good enough to secure more than satisfactory overall process” And “Many parents are concerned about the need for improvements in the tracking progress”. Oddly this is not matched in the parents’ responses on Teaching & Progress in the questionnaire. They were more positive. The evidence base does not seem sufficiently secure. Accountability in the inspection process must include reliability and consistency when applying criteria of judgements. Without these, comparisons of achievement, standards and practices will be of questionable value. 5. The format for reporting has changed since 2009–10. It is now less informative. Previously the shorter reports had: (a) Introduction/Description of School (b) Overall effectiveness of the school ( “ “ “ “ “ the Sixth Form) (c) What school should do to improve further (d) Achievement & Standards (e) Personal development & Well-being (f) Quality of Provision (g) Teaching & Learning (h) Care, Guidance & Support (i) Leadership & Management These are followed by tables of Inspection Judgements/Grades and, finally, the text from a “Letter to Pupils”. There are eightOverall Grades. The new format is generally briefer. There are now just three overall grades. On average, two to six paragraphs are given to comments on aspect inspected, varying with perceived importance. The number of main headings has been reduced from nine to six. “Achievement and Standards”, the key issue in an inspection, is now subsumed into “Main Findings” and/or “Outcomes”, often with brief comments. 6. The range of organizations and services that Ofsted now inspects is too wide and too numerous. It was set up to monitor effectiveness of education in maintained schools. Its focus is being dissipated. It is now covering fields outside education. 7. The accountability of Ofsted depends on consistency (see above). The inspection process is now too dependent on a school’s own assessments of its effectiveness. This should not drive an inspection but be tested by the inspection with a more vigorous approach (see paras 2 and 3 above). In the Ofsted Annual Report of 2008–09 it states; “Ofsted is a significant ingredient in the cocktail of improvement” but, in truth, this is self-fulfilling. Inspection has become an internalized process, based on schools’ own assessments. 76% of schools’ self-assessment is graded “good or outstanding”. Overall Grades are now in a narrow range (1 to 4) and c. 70% are either 1 or 2. On the other hand the gap between Grades 3 and 4 is now too wide. The ratio of these awarded grades is now 7:1 respectively. 2005–06—All schools (Section 5 inspections) Gd 1 Gd 2 Gd 3 Gd 4

11% 48% 34% 8% 2008–09 19% 50% 28% 4%

The % of “satisfactory” has not moved much!! cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w244 Education Committee: Evidence

Benchmarks from earlier Section 10 inspections, prior to 2005, are difﬁcult to establish over the longer term so genuine assessment of progress over the years is limited. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by the School Food Trust 1. The School Food Trust has worked closely with Ofsted on school food issues. We provided support to the HMIs for the Ofsted themed inspections on healthy eating in schools (2009–10)—published June 2010. 2. We are not in a position to comment on many of the questions you pose. We would however like to comment on the first question. 3. Learning about food is an essential part of children’s education. Food skills are important life skills like many other key elements of learning in school. School food regulations are ensuring that children are getting a better diet and research has shown benefits to heath, concentration and wellbeing, which in turn improve students’ capacity to learn. We can supply further information on this if needed. 4. Whilst there are regulations, and many schools naturally chose to improve pupils’ food, some do not prioritise feeding children well. It is important that there is a level playing field to ensure all schools are encouraged to keep school food to the required standards. Better school food has additional costs associated with it as do many high quality activities in a school. There is a risk that schools will give up on the substantial progress that has been made if there is no attention given to food provision and the dining environment in inspections. 5. We have also just undertaken a review of nutrition and food provision in Early Years settings and likewise feel that inspection of the EYFS welfare requirements for food and drink is essential too because of its significance to safeguarding and well being. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by South East Association of the Directors of Children’s Services The impact of the inspection process on school improvement and the weight given to different parts of the inspection process and the role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy It is clear that Ofsted does have an impact on schools and that schools aspire to get a good Ofsted grade. So the focus of inspections is particularly important. As the role of the local authority with respect to school improvement reduces, it remains vital to have a regulator who ensures that children are provided with a high quality education. Ofsted inspections need to pay particular attention to the education of vulnerable children and we would like to see a greater focus in the inspection process on the following: — The effectiveness of the schools ability to narrow the gap for vulnerable groups eg free school meals, black and minority ethnic, special educational needs and children with emotional and behaviour difﬁculties. — The use of temporary and permanent exclusions. We would like Ofsted to take a more forensic look at the reasons for the last few exclusions implemented by the school and whether appropriate support plans have been put in place prior to the exclusion. — The effectiveness of the way in which the pupil premium is used to narrow the gap. — An examination for secondary schools of how many young people had become (Not in Education Employment or Training) NEET after leaving schools and some of the reasons for this. We would recommend that failure to respond effectively to meet the needs of vulnerable children should be a limiting judgement in Ofsted terms—ie the school could not receive a good or outstanding judgement if any of these were poor. We are concerned about further increasing the length of time between inspections for schools who are good or outstanding. In our view schools can change very quickly. We believe this decision should be risk based and should use information such as school results, value added, attendance, exclusions, staff turnover and parental complaints as a trigger for increasing the frequency of inspections if necessary. We also want the local authority to have the right to request an earlier inspection. Since schools funding is largely protected, it will be important also for Ofsted to increase its focus on the extent to which it examines whether the school is providing value for money. It may also be valuable for Ofsted to do some themed inspections of support for vulnerable children so that best practice is shared. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w245

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process We are concerned about the consistency of inspections, and do not feel that all current inspection teams are of the same quality. We would like to see a greater involvement of trained peers and customers in the inspection process. For schools this could mean the greater involvement of children, young people and parents, with the possible inclusion of school leaders from other schools in the inspection team. For local authorities this could also involve children, young people and parents, and also other senior leaders from other local authority children’s services. We believe that this would grow capacity in the providers as well as ensure that Ofsted inspections teams keep abreast with the latest changes in the ﬁeld.

The judgement nature of inspection can have adverse consequences We would like to see a more formative process for inspection. For schools when there is an inspection, a link HMI works with the school doing monitoring visits over the next year. There is no equivalent for local authority children’s services. There need to be more links back between inspection and improvement. Inspection should look at learning and improvement over time. At present it is difﬁcult to see if any improvement has been made as the bar to reach keeps being changed. Finally Ofsted needs to keep abreast of the changing expectations of Government. At present funding is reducing before legislation to remove statutory requirements is occurring. Ofsted need to take this into account in their inspections. November 2010

Memorandum submitted by John Riley In January this year my wife, Anne, school had a Section 5 inspection. It was her fourth inspection in the 10 years she had been headteacher at Coppice Primary School and her sixth inspection as a senior manager. By 11.00am on the ﬁrst morning of the inspection she had suffered “an acute stress reaction” in other words a breakdown and I had to collect her from school. The only people she had met with were two Ofsted inspectors the subject matter discussed was Safeguarding. She had no medical history to suggest that she prone to such a reaction. She has not been able to return to work. A series of complaints were lodged with Ofsted (a synopsis is attached210) and it is the experience of the way Ofsted have conducted themselves that leads me to write to you and highlight four of the many areas that I believe need to addressed: — Lack of Accountability. — Lack of Transparency. — Inconsistency of Approach. — Inadequate and Biased Complaints Procedures.

1. Lack of Accountability It seems that Ofsted, as a Quango, are able to do pretty much as they please within budgetary guidelines. Specifically, they appear to determine inspection frameworks with little reference to anyone. The result is that schools are not only expected to take account of developing Government policy but also Ofsted’s latest “flavour of the month/year”. Last year it was “Safeguarding” and “Raising the Bar”. This year the approach to both has softened. Surely Ofsted should be following Government policy and not their own agenda. Inspection Frameworks should evolve and be fully reflective of Government policy.

2. Lack of Transparency During the complaints processes it became clear that the information being provided by the inspectors to Ofsted bore no relation to the information shown and discussed during the inspection. It was only after obtaining papers under Freedom of Information and Data Protection that it became clear that the inspectors had made a number of serious, unsubstantiated, and untrue, allegations about my wife, the school and the Local Authority. None of those allegations were raised in the end of inspection report to the school or indeed in the ﬁnal inspection report. The school was judged to be “Unsatisfactory” in “Overall Effectiveness” but “Good” on “Capacity for Sustained Improvement”. The “Unsatisfactory” judgement was based on alleged “Safeguarding” shortcomings. The school were led to believe that this was purely a clerical issue. Inspectors should be required to present all back up evidence for their judgements and be open to challenge before leaving the school. Similarly that evidence should be part of the information provided to Ofsted with 210 Not published on the Committee’s website. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w246 Education Committee: Evidence

the draft report for the report to be moderated. Instead the word of inspectors is just accepted. A similar approach by a school would not be allowed by Ofsted. Ofsted should, as minimum, be subjected to at least the same standards as they expect from schools. This is not currently the case.

3. Inconsistency As noted in point 1 there are year to year inconsistencies of approaches to inspections. As a result comparing schools in an area is only meaningful if all the schools were inspected against the same inspection framework. As an example, under this year’s framework my wife’s school would not have been judged “Unsatisfactory” because the approach to safeguarding has become more sensible. More worryingly is the inconsistency between inspection teams. In Derbyshire we are aware of a number of schools with the same clerical issue related to safeguarding. In all the other cases the inspection team used common sense and allowed the school to make a correction. Unfortunately, at my wife’s school, the inspectors seem to have a different agenda. Clearly there needs to be year to year comparability of inspection reports or an explanation of the speciﬁc framework against which the school is being judged. The issue of the inconsistency of the approach of the inspection teams appears to be more prevalent with Additional Inspectors and is probably reﬂective of the variable quality of the people being recruited by the contract companies.

4. Inadequate and Biased Complaints Procedure As you will see from the attached synopsis the only version that Ofsted complaints investigators are prepared to take account of is that of the inspectors regardless of evidence provided. The standard response is; “we have spoken to the inspectors and they say they did nothing wrong” and with that a complaint is dismissed. When irrefutable evidence is produced it is either completely ignored or the investigator effectively calls the complainant and witnesses liars. There is a case for minor technical complaints being handled by Ofsted but serious complaints similar to those we have raised should be dealt with by an independent panel from the start. For example, the panel could consist of representation from Ofsted, Local Authority, Union, School Governors and a Lay Person.

5. Summary Ofsted are charged with helping to raise standards in school. Instead they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which actively runs counter to their stated objectives. The standards by which they judge themselves are way below those that schools and their staff are expected to achieve. My wife’s case, incredible though it may appear, is not isolated. The way in which Ofsted has addressed my wife’s situation and that of her school is symptomatic of an organisation that is arrogant and rotten at the core and whose intrinsic ethos has less to do with high standards but is more concerned with self-preservation. It is time for a fundamental restructure. I hope the above points are found to be helpful. My wife, like many headteachers, has always seen the need for an inspection regime. Indeed she has had full respect for the previous ﬁve inspection teams she has encountered even if on some issues there has been an agreement to differ. However, a measure of the quality of an organisation is how it acts when things go wrong. In this case it is Ofsted that has been found wanting and it Ofsted that now requires “Special Measures”. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) 1. The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) is a body approved by the Secretary of State for the inspection of schools in membership of the Associations of the Independent Schools Council (ISC). As a body independent of government, ISI aims to provide an informed commentary on education issues as well as providing a high- quality inspection service. It regularly responds to consultations and inquiries, as well as working with all of the main political parties on education issues. 2. We responded to the Select Committee’s previous inquiry into school accountability, and would reiterate our comments to that inquiry. We add the following comments in line with the topics under current consideration. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w247

What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) 3. We believe that inspection should have two purposes: (1) to secure conformity with minimum standards, for the beneﬁt of those that organisations are designed to serve and (2) to promote improvement. 4. Improvement that is secured by dictating the processes or procedures that organisations should follow has only limited success because it stiﬂes creativity and restricts the possible routes to excellence. Inspection should instead focus on identifying areas for improvement within an organisation and recognise the strengths that can be further utilised to secure the desired outcomes.

The impact of the inspection process on school improvement 5. The impact of inspection varies according to the type of school and other support systems in place. The previous incarnation of the Select Committee, in its report on School Accountability, raised concerns that “the Government’s 21st Century School White Paper signals even greater complexity in an already overly complex system of school accountability and improvement initiatives”. ISI had already responded in similar terms to Government consultations on the report card proposals, and pupil wellbeing indicators. Inspection to date has led to signiﬁcant improvements in the education, care and welfare of pupils and the public reporting it provides enables parents and others to make informed choices, enabling a much stronger partnership between schools and parents than existed previously. Inspection is especially effective when inspectors can spend time on direct observation of lessons and other activities, scrutinising work, and in direct discussion with pupils and staff. It is on this ﬁrst hand evidence that secure judgements can most readily be made. However, the increase in complexity of regulation in recent years has placed increasing demands on inspector time to a level that is now disproportionate to the time spent on helping schools to improve the care and education that they provide.

The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work 6. The size of Ofsted, coupled with its budgetary constraints in recent years, has in our view led to a loss of flexibility within its operations which has made joint working more difficult for all involved. We would cite two examples. Firstly, the quality assurance of the inspection of British schools overseas. Ofsted have required in-depth on site monitoring overseas, equivalent to that carried out for its statutory remit. This increases costs to all concerned in a voluntary and non-statutory process. Secondly, the inspection of Association boarding schools which transferred to Ofsted from CSCI in April 2007. This represents a very small piece of work for Ofsted and did not appear to readily fit into its existing processes. Consequently, from the point of view of those being inspected and ourselves working with Ofsted on inspection of the same schools, the work has suffered from organisational difficulties. Certainly, the system works better now than at the start, but that has taken many hours of time and effort by Ofsted staff, schools and ourselves. Even after three years schools receive inconsistent experiences of these inspections. We would stress that Ofsted staff, including HMCI, have sought to resolve difficulties whenever they have been raised but because of interdependence between systems and processes designed for a range of different functions change can be slow to achieve.

The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process 7. We do not have direct experience of inspection teams but many Ofsted Additional Inspectors (AIs) apply to ISI to work as Reporting Inspectors. Our intensive training includes a number of assessed tasks and we have found that some AIs do not have a secure grasp of the full range of regulatory requirements.

The weight given to different factors within the inspection process 8. We welcome the Government’s recent announcements regarding refocusing inspection on the key features of education. Removing ancillary elements, such as community cohesion, prevents schools being penalised for issues which may be beyond their direct control. The regulatory context is crucial because of its impact on inspector time. We strongly support the need for a clear set of minimum regulatory standards for schools but for these to be effective the requirements should be clear and concise, based on outcomes required rather than processes involved. In particular, all duplication of requirements should be removed. We would reiterate our suggestion that independent schools should be subject to a central core of regulations that apply to all settings and that take account where necessary of any additional requirements for early years and boarding welfare. This should remove the overlapping of different sets of regulations that make it extremely difﬁcult for schools to know precisely what is required of them. Regulations should be easy for all to understand what is needed, not just those who are specialist in the ﬁeld of regulation. We would also suggest that inspection judgements should be left to the professional discretion of the lead inspector, and not subject to limitation by the inspection framework.

Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate 9. We recognise that the current practice of collaborative working has advantages but continue to question whether one organisation can deliver excellence across such a wide remit and develop the strength in depth to meet the needs of multiple inspection frameworks applicable to a wide range of very different settings. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w248 Education Committee: Evidence

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

10. For maintained schools and similar provision within Ofsted’s remit, it is reasonable for the government to insist on accountability through inspection to conﬁrm that public funds are being spent wisely and to good effect. However, for wholly private provision, inspection to safeguard the education and welfare of children against minimum standards should be organised separately through a government approved inspectorate to take account of their different context. October 2010

Memorandum submitted by Pam Barrow-Jones

I am writing to you because I am a foster carer in Folkestone, I care for mother and their baby, teaching the parents how to care for their baby safely and teaching them every day skills in order to help parents care for their baby.

I have been fostering for 16 years, and I am passionate about the work that I can do with young people, especially if they have learning difﬁculties.

I am a lone carer, and open up my home and my heart to try and achieve goals whenever possible.

I am a level 2 carer, and work for mid Kent fostering. My fostering social worker informed me that new rules set by OFSTED, have now got to be carried out, regarding children staying in their own home whilst a carer needs time to attend meetings etc . This ruling is absolutely silly, I find it very difficult to find another carer to come into my home and sit with a mum and baby with learning difficulties, and due to the shortage of carers, this has to be supervised by an experienced carer, so with the new rules that now have been put into place, I am going to find training even more difficult to do.

This ruling really has not been thought through, especially with mum and baby placements. We work 24/7 and I do not pass the babies that I care for around to other carers, when children come to my home, they are treated like my own children, as I believe that attachment is vital for children’s wellbeing and stability. November 2010

Memorandum submitted by Professor Colin Richards

Suggestions for aNew Inspection Model Based on My Contribution to the Cambridge Review of Primary Education

APPENDIX 1

A POSSIBLE MODEL OF SCHOOL INSPECTION

1. The Government needs a system which assures that individual primary schools are providing a suitable quality of education and which triggers action should that quality not be evident. This requires a system of school inspection which assesses standards and quality and retains the conﬁdence of parents and teachers. The current Ofsted inspection model does not provide this. However, parents have come to expect publicly available periodic assessments of the quality of and standards in, individual schools. It would be political folly to abandon the notion of regular inspection.

2. The current Ofsted model would be modified in a number of ways to make “inspection fit for purpose” Inspections would be lengthened (compared with the current “light-touch” model) but not to the same extent as the earlier Ofsted inspection models. This would probably involve lengthening the time between inspections from three to perhaps five years. Such enhanced inspections would focus on the classroom, not on documentation, and would focus on (a) the performance of children in the work actually observed by inspectors over the range of the curriculum; and (b) the quality of teaching and of other provision based on far more classroom observation than the current “light-touch” inspection model allows. Inspections would also report on the effectiveness of the school’s procedures for self-evaluation and improvement. A summary of these judgements would be reported publicly to parents, along with a summary of the school’s reactions to the inspection judgements. A very adverse report might trigger a full inspection or the bringing forward of the timing of the next inspection. Inspection findings would be seen as independent professional, though subjective, assessments of schools’ strengths and weaknesses at a specific point in time. No attempt would be made to compare the results of successive inspections three or five years apart.

3. Governors, parents, Local Authorities or schools themselves would have the right to request an inspection during the normal period between inspections and this request would be considered by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w249

4. Inspection teams would include the individual school’s improvement partner (ie its SIP or its future equivalent) in an advisory (but not inspectorial) capacity. The SIP would take responsibility with the head and governors of the school for any follow-up work consequent on the inspection. 5. The system of inspections would be administered by a reconstituted Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, a standalone independent, publicly funded body who would report regularly to a Parliamentary Select Committee and whose work would be periodically reviewed by a commission including representatives of all relevant stakeholders and drawing on the expertise of inspectors, researchers and educationists from other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad. School inspections would be carried out by an enlarged body of government inspectors (HMI) incorporating HMI currently working in Ofsted and drawing on members of the current cadre of additional inspectors. 6. In addition to contributing to school inspection HMI would revert to a role similar to that of pre-Ofsted days. They would have their own “patch” of schools, would liaise with local authorities and would also carry out their own programme of survey inspections. In exceptional circumstances HMI might inspect individual schools at the request of ministers. December 2010

Supplementary memorandum submitted by Professor Colin Richards In addition to my submission referred to below can I draw the committee's attention to points made by John Stuart mill in “On Liberty”. These points stress the importance of an independent Inspectorate that can put the affects of government policy under scrutiny and who can diffuse interesting practice that may be different from government orthodoxies. With individuals and voluntary associations…..there are varied experiments and endless variety of experience. What the State can usefully do is to make itself a useful depository, and active circulator and diffuser, of the experience resulting from many trials. Its business is to enable each experimentalist to beneﬁt by the experiments of others, instead of tolerating no experiments but its own. (134) It is indispensable..that the means should exist, independently of the government, of forming watchful criticism and furnishing it with the opportunities and experience necessary for a correct judgment of great practical affairs (138). December 2010

Memorandum submitted by Dorothy Latham As a former Ofsted inspector I would like to contribute a personal view concerning the way the focus of inspections has changed during the period since I first became an inspector in 1995. The biggest changes taking place have been in the size of the inspector-day allocations. At first these were rather overwhelmingly large, and became unnecessarily so. Then there was a reduction, but one which still allowed good coverage of subjects, teachers and pedagogical practice. However, in the last few years, the considerable further reduction, along with an over-reliance on data, seems to me to be inimical to the fostering of improvement to standards in schools in the ways it can be mediated by inspections. The data itself is not over-revealing of such influences on teaching and learning as relationships between the teachers and the taught, nor of attitudes, including open-ness to new ideas, nor of the corporate ethos of the school. Time and the means to judge these aspects have been greatly reduced. While for some inspections the data may be very recent, for many others, it has been generated months prior to the inspection and can often relate to different end of key stage cohorts. Schools do not necessarily remain stable in terms of their performance, and this can thus be a source for producing a less than accurate current picture of a school’s developing levels of achievement, whether up or down. More reliable and comprehensive representative apprehension of current practice needs to be gained by increasing actual lesson and activity observations, including feedback given to accompany these. Feedback, whether to class or subject teachers at the end of a lesson or to co-ordinators as a summary of observations, consolidates strengths and encourages further development, while discussion within a professional dialogue about weaknesses also guides forward progress, frequently suggesting or giving rise to the search for better alternative methods and ideas. This valuable impetus for progress gained from such a substantial and immediate picture has been almost missing under the recent and present regimes. Data analysis tells the school quantitatively about its improvement or decline in various aspects and overall, but information about strengths and weaknesses couched immediately after observation, within a professional dialogue, channels practice forwards qualitatively. No doubt the decision to focus much more on the data-driven focus of today was impelled by the need to save costs by reducing inspector-days. However, though the carefully analysed data is precise, is reliable within cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w250 Education Committee: Evidence

the context of its generation, and is a most important part of any inspection, it would be a positive move in helping schools to move forward to complement this further by more actual lesson or activity observations with their concomitant beneﬁts. I feel strongly that this would enhance the inspection process in terms of pushing ahead school performance. December 2010

Memorandum submitted by Katharine Birbalsingh Below are my thoughts on the ways in which Ofsted could develop for the better. 1. Inspectors need to have more respect for the teacher and her choices on how to teach. She should be free to do what is necessary for the children in her classroom. The expectation of a prescriptive lesson plan must be abandoned. A teacher should be able to stand in front of the class and have the children answer questions. We need to move away from the idea that the teacher is a “facilitator of learning” who moves around the class instead of teaching up at the front. 2. We need to reduce the emphasis on group work and games. This must change if we are to see more learning take place in lessons. This trend is destructive to real learning and real development of our children. That isn’t to say that group learning does not have its place in lessons, but the expectation should not be that all good lessons should have group work and games, whatever the topic, whatever the subject. 3. Behaviour is not held up to a rigorous standard. Ofsted says behaviour is good when it isn’t. Inspectors need to raise their standards. 4. Inspections should be done without warning. Otherwise, inspectors are simply watching a performance. Schools are able to hide their worst children on the inspection days. 5. Judging schools entirely on results and little else means teachers teach to the test and the whole child is abandoned. We need to have more breadth and depth in the league tables—behaviour, kindness, manners, rigour etc need to be judged. These values are difficult to quantify and qualify and so clever thinking is needed to establish ways to judge them. 6. Inspections should be testing the ability of the Senior Team to observe lessons and get it right. This is done to a certain extent already. But inspectors should roam the school with members of the Senior Team, to get a sense of the understanding the Senior Team has of the school. Then a greater trust could be built with schools and inspections would not have to take place so often. 7. Inspectors should monitor Senior Teams by looking for consistency & leadership. This can be done by clever questioning of leadership figures and ordinary staff. Do they match up? Is there a vision? Is the school being properly led? This should be done at random, involving a wide variety of teachers. Inspectors should be looking for consistency. 8. Ofsted should judge how competitive schools are—how they instil competition in their children. 9. Inspectors should judge motivation and aspiration in the children. This should not only be judged (as it currently is) in lessons, to see how engaged the children are and the judgement be placed solely on the teacher. This should be judged overall in the school, to see what systems the school has in place to encourage motivation and aspiration in its children. 10. Ofsted should judge the level of the excuse-culture and balance this against how well the children are supported. So yes, it is good to have anger management classes, but how far does this then allow the children to behave badly? Do members of the Senior Team understand this tension? 11. While Ofsted judges the curriculum offer schools give to children, it should not just look at the range of the offer but also at how academic the offer is. Are children left to choose what they like? Or are they given the right kind of direction to choose what will later benefit them in life? 12. We need radical and creative work around the expectation of inspectors to see new fads being implemented. Starters, plenaries, AFL, personalised learning, targets, independent learning etc. Inspectors need to be shaken out of this box-ticking mentality. There should be an overall sense: Are the children learning? Are they happy? Is there consistency amongst the teachers? Do the systems work? Is the school being led well? Inspectors need to move away from judging minutiae and allow schools the freedom to make their own decisions. Inspectors should then judge the outcomes. This requires a massive shift in culture.

The problem Ofsted has, in the main, is that it tends to judge that which can be easily quantiﬁed and qualiﬁed. But leadership, consistency, culture (behaviour and motivation) and teaching are the main things that make for a successful school. These are what we should be judging in our inspections, and judging them by criteria that are meaningful, not just to tick a box, but to inspire real change for the better. December 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w251

Memorandum submitted by Veale Wasbrough Vizards Background 1. Veale Wasbrough Vizards is a commercial law ﬁrm based in London and Bristol. For over 25 years we have provided specialist legal advice to the independent schools sector. The ﬁrm acts for over 800 independent schools nationally. The scope of our advice is wide, encompassing every aspect of law and regulation that impinges on the management and operation of an independent school. In the course of our work we advise extensively on all aspects of schools’ inspections and regulatory compliance. 2. Against this background of experience, we set out herein a number of submissions and recommendations to the Education Select Committee [“the Committee”] on behalf of our client The North London Collegiate School [“the School”] on the role and performance of Ofsted. Our submissions are in response to a Memorandum submitted to the Committee by Mr and Mrs Williams [“the Parents”].

Introduction 3. The School is an independent day school for girls with charitable objects to advance the education of girls by the provision of a day and / or boarding school (“the School”) in or near to the London Borough of Harrow and by ancillary or other educational activities and other associated activities for the benefit of the community. The School was founded in 1850 by Frances Mary Buss, a pioneer of education for women. 4. The School educates girls between 4 and 18 and is situated in a mainly residential area of Edgware. The School is academically selective and gives high priority to the provision of what is termed “an ambitious education” to enable each girl to make the most of their own gifts. It aims to do this through the professionalism of its teachers, their drive and enthusiasm and their detailed knowledge and love of their subject. It aims for academic excellence, the growth of the whole personality, good relationships, and going beyond the demands of examinations. Pupils achieve high academic success. The School has been placed in the top five of the Daily Telegraph exam league tables every year for over a decade, arguably making it the most academically successful school in England. 5. As a member of the Independent Schools Council, the School is inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (“the ISI”). The last inspection was conducted on 18 to 21 February 2008. The inspectors concluded—“The educational experience is outstanding. It is fully consistent with the School’s declared aims and philosophy…[T]he spiritual, moral and social and cultural development of pupils is outstanding…[T]he quality of pastoral care and of the welfare, health and safety pupils is outstanding… [T]he School has established and maintained an outstanding and effective partnership with parents…[T]he quality of governance is outstanding. The structure of the governing body is well defined and its oversight of the School, both junior and senior, is very effective”. 6. The School’s latest inspection report is testimony to the dedication and hard work of the Governors and the Headmistress Mrs Bernice McCabe, who has led the School’s Senior Management Team since 1997. The methodologies employed by the ISI inspectors in the course of this and previous inspections, have delivered a process of rigorous scrutiny which has assisted the School in rising to the challenge of continuing to raise the bench mark for outstanding educational success. 7. The Parents’ Memorandum strongly suggests that some parents fundamentally misunderstand: — the nature of the relationship between Ofsted and the ISI; — the precise role of inspectorates in relation to regulatory complaints handling; and — the requirements of the Independent Schools Regulations that were in place in 2009—now amended by the 2010 regulations. 8. In our experience many parents make incorrect assumptions as to the legal obligations owed by independent schools and their inspectorates. For the reasons set out below, we wish to make a number of recommendations to the Committee in order to help allay parents’ misconceptions.

Recommendations 9. Ofsted and the ISI should provide clearer information for parents on: (i) the respective roles between the Department for Education, Ofsted and the ISI in relation to independent schools, recognising the value of independence essential to schools speciﬁcally chosen by parents for that very quality; (ii) the complaints handling function of the inspectorates; and (iii) the regulatory requirements placed on independent schools which, contrary to some assertions, are at least as rigorous as those imposed on maintained schools and in some cases more so. One example of this is the requirement in the Independent Schools Regulations [2003] for all staff to have Criminal Records Bureau (“CRB”) checks. The then Secretary of State for Education, Ruth Kelly, conﬁrmed in January 2006 that CRB checks were not at that time mandatory for staff appointed to state schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w252 Education Committee: Evidence

The School’sExperience 10. In September 2007 the Parents placed their daughter [“the Pupil”] at the School. In the first two terms the Pupil experienced friendship difficulties with two girls in her class. The School took comprehensive measures to deal with these issues in accordance with the School’s Anti-bullying policy. 11. The School’s Anti-bullying policy conforms with all regulatory requirements and is robustly implemented. The policy is made available to all parents on request in accordance with the Independent Schools Regulations and its effectiveness is reviewed annually by the Governors. It is strongly refuted on behalf of the School that it has at any relevant time fallen short of the regulatory requirements. The policy is published in the staff handbook and staff are trained on best practice and implementation. 12. The Anti-bullying policy makes it clear that all reported incidents will be treated seriously and fully investigated and that all parties will be heard and given appropriate support. A number of interventions are prescribed in the policy and include ensuring immediate safety and well being of those involved; providing on-going support and counselling for the individual being bullied; informing the individual who has been responsible that the behaviour is unacceptable; counselling the individual to understand the implications of bullying; establishing whether further support and / or counselling are required to rectify the behaviour; disciplining the offender; informing the parents; and following up with the individuals to provide any necessary support. 13. In the School’s last inspection report following their interviews with pupils, the ISI inspectors reported: “When interviewed, pupils were unanimous in saying that bullying and harassment are not tolerated and, on the very rare occasions when they occur, they are dealt with immediately.” 14. The Parents allege in their Memorandum that the School’s staff are inadequately trained and ill-informed of the anti-bullying procedures, which is inconsistent with the inspectors’ findings. The School’s records support the inspectors’ account. Further, the Parents have previously acknowledged in writing to the School: — that they were able to raise their concerns with members of staff at parents’ evenings and on other occasions in person and by telephone; — that when the Pupil complained to them of bullying incidents in the summer term 2008, they reported these concerns to two members of staff who immediately implemented a tougher disciplinary regime and provided enhanced support for the Pupil; — the School provided a good session to the Pupil’s class on class dynamics; — the School implemented a strict reporting regime, the girls’ behaviour was monitored with clear milestones and penalties set for the future; — the School made plans to re-organise the girls’ seating plan in class so that stronger friendships could be reinforced; and — their express recognition that the School responded strongly in putting matters right. 15. On 21 July 2008, having been offered a place at another school, the Parents decided to withdraw the Pupil from the School. In their withdrawal letter to the Headmistress, the Parents acknowledged that whilst they and the Pupil had received help from the staff to address their concerns, they had concluded that the School was not the correct environment for the Pupil. 16. On 2 September 2008, the Headmistress responded to the letter explaining her disappointment at their decision. She explained that her disappointment was based on the fact that during the summer term all appeared to be going well. 17. On 15 September 2008—almost two months after withdrawing the Pupil from the School—the Parents wrote to the Chairman of Governors to make a formal complaint against Headmistress in respect of the tone of her letter which they perceived to be an inappropriate response. They also complained about the content of the School’s latest newsletter which made reference to the ISI inspection report. 18. The Chairman wrote, responding to the Parents, on 1 October 2008. The Chairman’s letter pointed out the contractual position in respect of fees in lieu of notice and her support for the appropriateness of the Headmistress’ letter. 19. On 2 October 2008, that is the following day, the Parents again wrote to the Chairman. This time the focus of their letter was on the letter of 2 September 2008 sent to them by the Headmistress, as well as on the detail of the ISI’s inspection report 2008—specifically an alleged failure on the part of the School to bring to the inspectors’ attention the Pupil’s individual circumstances. The Parents also criticised the School’s arrangements for distributing its Anti bullying policy which, it was suggested, should have been published in accordance with the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998. In fact, that Act does not apply in this context to independent schools. The law governing, respectively, maintained sector and independent schools, is in this regard, both very complex and very different, having developed piecemeal over many years. The Parents’ confusion is therefore unsurprising but nevertheless a matter of concern, given the campaign they have chosen subsequently to adopt (based in part on this understanding) in an (unsuccessful) attempt to undermine the School’s outstanding reputation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w253

20. Following the exchange of correspondence above, the Parents, some time later—we believe this was in March 2009—made a complaint to the ISI alleging: — that the School failed to publish its Anti-Bullying procedures correctly; and — that the ISI’s 2008 inspection report was incorrect. 21. The first aspect of this complaint was based on their incorrect interpretation of the independent schools regulations. In particular, in February 2009, new amendments to the Independent Schools regulations had come into force which gave rise to considerable confusion. More specifically, and due to what appears to have been a drafting error, the new regulations opened up a number of interpretations as to the necessity for independent schools to publish their policies on the school’s website (where one exists). Prior to this, the 2003 regulations that had until then applied, had been clear in stipulating that schools’ anti-bullying policies should be “made available on request”, and in providing that schools should ensure that parents of pupils and prospective pupils were made aware of the existence of the policy. 22. In this context, and following the publication of the new amendments in 2009, the Department for Children Schools and Families in order to quell the high level of confusion that ensued—announced that independent schools with websites should continue to either send parents a copy of the school’s policies on request, or publish them on the school’s website. Be that as it may, it is clear from the foregoing, that during the period in question (2007 to 2008) the onus on the School was simply to ensure that its Anti-bullying policy was “made available on request”. The School’s records demonstrate that it acted in compliance with this requirement: the Parents requested a copy of the Anti bullying policy on 30 April 2008, and this was promptly sent the next day. 23. Under the second heading of their complaint, the Parents appear not to have appreciated the limited scope and timetable for engaging the ISI’s complaints procedure. The 2009 version of the procedure made it clear that the ISI would not consider complaints involving pupils no longer at the School. By the time the Parents complained to the ISI they were significantly out of time. Similar restrictions now appear in the ISI’s 2010 complaints procedure. This in effect provides that: — parents’ complaints should focus on the conduct of the inspection or on the inspection judgements; — internal matters (for example school fees or employment issues) or events that happened after the inspection cannot normally be considered; and — parents’ complaints must be made within six weeks from the date of publication of the inspection report. In exceptional circumstances this time limit can be extended up to three months.

The Relationship between the Department for Education, Ofsted and the Independent Schools Inspectorate 24. The role of Ofsted in relation to the School is vested in its authority to supervise the ISI in accordance with a protocol that exists between Ofsted and the approved independent inspectorates. The protocol was last updated in January 2011: “Ofsted monitors the work of the independent inspectorates on a non-statutory basis, by agreement between the Department for Education (DfE) and Ofsted. Under this agreement, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) is required to prepare an annual report about each independent inspectorate. The annual report summarises the main judgements made by Ofsted as a result of its monitoring of a sample of the inspectorate’s inspection work in the academic year preceding the report. The report will provide advice to the Secretary of State about the effectiveness of the inspectorate’s arrangements for inspection, and about the quality of its inspections and reports, in relation to the expectations set out and the inspectorate’s own framework, as agreed with the DfE. In preparing this report, HMCI must also have regard to matters that the Secretary of State may direct”. 25. In August 2010 Ofsted published its annual report on the quality of the inspections and reports produced by the ISI 2009 / 2010. On the quality of inspections, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector observed: “During the academic year Ofsted monitored 13 inspections, just over half of which were conducted under the new framework. This is a similar number to last year. The outcome of our monitoring reveals a very good picture: all but one of the inspections was judged to be good, the other satisfactory. All met the required standard… Inspections were well planned. Pre-inspection commentaries were thorough, and drew well on the evidence available before the inspection, including the views of parents and pupils. This ensured that inspection teams were very well prepared for their roles and that suitable inspection trails and activities were set up. The expertise, experience and skills of the reporting inspectors remain real strengths of the inspectorate. Teams were deployed effectively and a good range of evidence was collected. Team inspectors brought strong relevant expertise to the inspections. Judgements were reliable and securely founded on evidence…”

26. The report reveals the importance of the monitoring role performed by Ofsted and the part this plays in driving standards in independent schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [11-04-2011 14:35] Job: 007024 Unit: PG01

Ev w254 Education Committee: Evidence

Conclusions 27. The role and performance of Ofsted in relation to independent schools is an important one. Its monitoring of the ISI serves a valuable function, adding an additional level of scrutiny which imports greater public conﬁdence in the quality of the ISI’s inspection reports. 28. Ofsted is also the body responsible for inspecting independent schools’ boarding facilities, which it does in coordination with the ISI. This overlap provides additional opportunities for Ofsted to gain insight as to the rigour and quality of the ISI’s inspection process. 29. The role and performance of Ofsted and its relationship the ISI and the Department for Education are not always clearly understood by parents. More information is required in the public domain to address this, particularly for parents who decide to move their children from a state school to the independent education sector. 30. The role of the Department should remain limited. When parents select independent education the vast majority do so on the clear understanding that they have exercised their right to educate their children independently of the state. Their expectation is that the role of the Department will be conﬁned to strategic overview and the setting of minimum standards to ensure the right of children to be safe and receive adequate education. March 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 04/2011 007024 19585