Twenty Years Inspecting English Schools – Ofsted 1992-2012 Dr Adrian Elliott

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ON STATE EDUCATION November 2012 Twenty years inspecting English schools – Ofsted 1992-2012 Dr Adrian Elliott 1976-1992: Why was inspection 1992-1993: Ofsted is established reformed? Key points The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) Proposals for a new national inspec- was created by the Education (Schools) Act 1992 shortly before the election won by John tion service for schools in England • Ofsted was set up following a period of sustained criticism of English state Major. The new organisation was to be led emerged from growing disquiet about by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools state schools from the late 1960s on- education. Government policy after (HMCI) but there would be fewer HMIs and wards. 1992 was to ensure all schools were these were left, at least initially, with a largely In 1976, Prime Minister James Callaghan’s inspected regularly by a rigorous and monitoring role. Teams of inspectors, led by speech at Ruskin College criticising schools transparent process. Reports were a registered inspector, from both the private had led to a national debate. Education was to be written to a common format sector and LEAs, would bid to win contracts to given increasing priority by the Thatcher gov- accessible to parents and judgements inspect schools. ernment in its later years, culminating in the in- on schools consistent. They had to include a lay inspector with no troduction of a national curriculum in 1988 but prior involvement in education (a stipulation it was only after the replacement of Margaret later dropped). Reports were to be published Thatcher by John Major in 1990 that the gov- • By the late 1990s all English faster than in the past, within 25 days, and government decided to reform school inspection schools had been inspected in a ernors were then given 40 days to produce an (Wilcox and Gray [1] also Dunford). process which was now a major part action plan to address key issues. Previously, school inspections nationally had of English school life whilst the high The bill passed relatively unscathed, al- been carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectors profile and controversial views of the though a clause that would have given schools (HMI) whilst most local education authorities responsibility for choosing their own inspection (LEAs) had teams which both inspected and chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, team was amended in the Lords to ensure that advised schools in their area. HMI had ad- fuelled a continuing debate over Ofsted would decide on both inspection timings vised ministers on the state of publicly funded standards. and teams for each school. Another proposal schools since 1839. to stop LEAs inspecting their own schools was They undertook regular full inspections, with • After Woodhead’s departure, also defeated (Dunford). teams of up to 15, as well as short inspections The new organisation and its first head, Ofsted adopted a more collaborative on particular aspects of schools. After 1983, Professor Stewart Sutherland, faced a formida- inspection reports were published. approach to schools and encouraged ble task. Between March and September 1992 But although widely respected in schools them to evaluate their own they had to produce an inspection framework they were increasingly seen by Conservative performance. Ofsted’s responsibilities and handbook, recruit thousands of inspectors ministers as part of the problem with education, had increased but its role in the and train them before the first inspections in with Kenneth Baker claiming they had encour- failure to protect a murdered London 1993. aged a 1960s liberal, egalitarian consensus baby led to renewed demands for Schools would be graded on a seven point (Lee and Fitz). Furthermore, some ministers more effective inspection. scale from ‘excellent’ (1) to ‘very poor’ (7). The thought the annual report of Her Majesty’s handbook included evaluation criteria with de- Chief Inspector, such as that of 1989 which scriptions of what ‘good’ (3) and ‘satisfactory’ condemned the state of school buildings, • The coalition government elected in (4) would mean in all aspects of school life to provided too much ammunition to government 2010 is simplifying and toughening be judged. Ministers had previously criticised critics (Thomas). inspection. Arguments continue over HMI reports for lack of clarity and all reports But, in any case, with fewer than 500 mem- Ofsted’s accuracy and fairness, were now to follow a single framework with the bers the inspectorate was too small to under- same main headings: take what the Major government intended to particularly towards schools in establish, a system that would inspect and deprived areas, and its effectiveness • Basic information about the school and its report on every school every four years. The in improving schools. pupils. idea of an increase in HMI or the handing over • The inspection’s main findings and key of responsibility to LEA inspectorates was re- • Debate also continues over: issues for action. jected by the government. • Standards of achievement (progress) and Kenneth Clarke, the new education secre- (i) how wide the inspection remit quality of learning. tary, made clear that choice for parents was to should be; (ii) where responsibility for • Efficiency of the school. be a key driver of the new system. He intended, improvement after inspection should • Pupils’ personal development, behaviour ‘to take the mystery out of education by provid- lie; and (iii) whether three companies and attendance. ing the real choice which flows from . inde- should have a monopoly of provision. • Subjects of the curriculum. pendent inspection’ (Wilcox and Gray [1]). • The factors contributing to the findings, including teaching quality, assessment, cur- widened considerably. In 1998, the Labour reduced from four or five days to two or three. riculum quality, special educational needs, government, having reappointed Woodhead The long notice given to schools of up to six equality of opportunity, management and for another four-year term, extended Ofsted’s weeks was replaced by 48 hours. resources, pupil welfare and parental links. responsibilities to include the inspection of lo- Schools were expected to produce far less cal authorities and teacher training establish- paperwork, although the quantity provided Today’s reports are shorter and individual ments. Another change, later dropped, includ- had often been far in excess of what inspec- subject reports have been largely dropped. ed the reporting to headteachers of inspectors’ tors needed. Whilst many teachers found the Nevertheless, the main elements of those first grading of lessons. shorter notice less stressful, others thought the reports from 1993 remain prominent in those In 1997, the cycle of inspection was changed reduction in the amount of teaching observed of 2012 although, over time, comments on from four years to six years and whilst this part- led to judgements about schools being increas- resources and accommodation have reduced ly reflected the pressure on Ofsted of maintain- ingly based on performance data. The loss of significantly. ing a punishing schedule of inspecting 20,000 individual subject reports was regretted by By 1994, when Stewart Sutherland retired schools every four years, it also signalled an some, including heads of successful depart- as HMCI, much had been accomplished. The increasing questioning of part of the rationale ments. first inspections had taken place in September behind Ofsted. Inspection was now based on a four rather 1993 and by May 1994 over 7,500 inspectors Before Ofsted had been established, much than a seven grade system: had been trained; most were local author- had been made of ensuring parents learnt what ity advisers with some retired HMI, heads or was really happening in classrooms. But two Descriptor Grade teachers and a few serving heads. Within three key findings had emerged from the early years Outstanding 1 years Ofsted was inspecting 6,000 schools an- of inspection. Good 2 nually and had inspected every state school in First, although, as chief inspectors’ reports Satisfactory 3 the country. had stressed for years, there was significant Inadequate 4 1994-2001: A new regime under-achievement, in some poorer districts and in coasting schools in more affluent areas, Inadequate schools would be deemed to be Stewart Sutherland was replaced by Chris most schools were effective and well run. So ‘causing concern’. Inspectors had to decide Woodhead, who, over the next few years, was how often was it necessary or cost effective whether a school should be placed in special to become one of the most influential and con- to revisit schools to confirm this in view of the measures, where the school leadership lacked troversial figures in English education. To his increasingly sophisticated pupil performance the capacity to improve alone or, if the school supporters he was a fearless upholder of tradi- data now available? had the potential to improve by itself, it should tional standards and critic of bad teaching. He Secondly, whilst parents wanted to hear the receive a notice to improve. was dismissive of most educational research main inspection findings and be reassured Changes also took place in the way in- and sceptical of the way deprivation had been about their child’s school, they had shown little spection contracts were awarded. Many local made an excuse for low standards in many in- interest in the minutiae of inspection. Most had authority teams had already stopped inspect- ner city schools. neither perused the lengthy early reports nor ing to concentrate on school improvement However, his opponents claimed he was used inspection, except rarely in some failing and smaller inspection companies had been unfairly negative about state schools and used schools, as weapons against school leaders. swallowed up by larger ones. Inspection was performance and inspection data in a selective, The term ‘proportionate inspection’ was in- now regionalised with, controversially, only sometimes misleading, manner.

Load more