House of Commons - School Accountability - Children, Schools and Families Committee

School Accountability - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents

3 THE INSPECTORATE

BACKGROUND: THE DUTIES OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR AND THE FUNCTIONS OF OFSTED

103. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in England, which eventually evolved into Ofsted, was set up in its modern form in the Education (Schools) Act 1992. Since then, there have been a number of changes to the remit and functions of Ofsted and the Chief Inspector, the most radical of which was the extension of the remit to cover education, children's services and skills under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The 2006 Act established the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector—and Inspectors (referred to as HMI)—of Education, Children's Services and Skills.

104. We take regular evidence from the Chief Inspector on the full range of her responsibilities and it has not been our intention in this inquiry to duplicate some of that work by going into the details of how the inspectorate operates.[156] This inquiry has focused more on whether a school inspectorate is a necessary component of an accountability system, what its role should be, and what outcomes should be expected. We are concerned here only with that part of Ofsted's remit which covers the inspection of maintained schools. Under the current legislative regime, section 5 of the Education Act 2005 provides that, for each school inspected, the Chief Inspector must report on:

the quality of the education provided in the school;
the extent to which the education meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school;
the educational standards achieved;
the quality of the leadership and management, including whether financial resources are managed effectively;
the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of the pupils;
the contribution made by the school to the well-being of its pupils; and
the contribution made by the school to community cohesion.

Such inspections are known as "section 5 inspections". Pupils' well-being, referred to in this list of requirements, is defined in the Children Act 2004 as:

physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
protection from harm and neglect;
education, training and recreation;
the contribution made by them to society;
social and economic well-being.[157]

This definition translates into legislation the five Every Child Matters outcomes by which children's services are judged. These outcomes were introduced in the eponymous green paper published by the Government in September 2003 and have achieved wide significance in children's services ever since. The outcomes are:

being healthy;
staying safe;
enjoying and achieving;
making a positive contribution; and
economic well-being.[158]

105. In addition to the requirements for a section 5 inspection set out in the 2005 Act, the 2006 Act requires Ofsted and the Chief Inspector to carry out their work in such a manner as to encourage the services they inspect and regulate to improve, to be user-focused, and to be efficient and effective in the use of resources. It is, therefore, part of Ofsted's statutory duty to encourage school improvement.

106. Ofsted has operated under a new inspection framework since September 2009. The 2009 framework extends the principle of proportionality, so that the frequency of inspection is proportionate to need: 'good' and 'outstanding' schools will be inspected approximately every five years, with a 'health check' report in the interim (known as an "interim assessment"). 'Satisfactory' and 'inadequate' schools will receive more regular inspection and monitoring checks. The majority of schools will receive one or two days' notice, but without-notice inspections will be used for a minority, especially where there are particular concerns about provision. Inspections will normally take no more than two days. The inspection framework includes particular emphasis on the following:

engaging headteachers, staff and governors in the process of inspection so that they understand the judgements made;
promoting improvement: inspectors will make specific recommendations based on their diagnosis of the school's strengths and weaknesses;
inspectors will spend more time in classrooms and emphasise quality of teaching and its impact on learning;
an increased focus on the quality of partnership working with other education providers, with a grade being awarded under this heading;
continued use of 'limiting judgements' in key areas, such as pupil progress, safeguarding and equality, so that schools must achieve a certain level of performance in these areas if they are to achieve a 'good' or 'outstanding' grade; and
evaluating the achievement and well-being of all pupils and of particular groups of pupils; and assessing the extent to which schools ensure that all pupils, including those most at risk, succeed;
assessing how well schools promote equality of opportunity, and how effectively they tackle discrimination;
gathering, analysing and taking into account the views of parents and pupils;
use of more indicators of pupil well-being;
checking schools' procedures for safeguarding children.[159]

Ofsted inspectors hold discussions with staff and students during the course of inspections.

107. The increased emphasis on proportionate inspection according to a school's need is based on the view that inspection drives improvement. The General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) has been supportive of the "proportionate approach to inspection of schools" developed since 2004 as part of the New Relationship with Schools framework. The GTCE considers this approach more effective and cost-effective than the preceding inspection regime and approves of the placing of schools in categories.[160] Schools previously judged 'satisfactory' or 'good' must, however, be able to demonstrate ongoing improvement in order to maintain that grade. It is arguable that, where a school is already extremely good, there may be little room for improvement. In the parallel context of school report cards, the Committee heard in New York from high-performing schools such as Bard High School Early College that, because of the emphasis on progression measures in the New York school report card, they found it nearly impossible to achieve the highest grade. They considered it counter-intuitive that the highest-performing schools should receive a B rather than an A grade.

108. Ofsted maintains that notice periods under the new regime should be short and that this has "been found to reduce the stress of over-preparation".[161] John Bangs, Assistant Secretary, Education, Equality and Professional Development at the NUT, told us that NUT members felt that between two and five days' notice of an inspection was fair, providing them with sufficient preparation time without allowing the same degree of tension to build as under the previous regime where much longer notice periods were in operation. Witnesses reported that teachers are not in favour of the without-notice inspections which were piloted by Ofsted prior to the introduction of the 2009 framework.[162] The National Association of Head Teachers stated that only sufficient notice can allow for a pre-inspection briefing to identify issues inspectors will want to pursue; sufficient time to collate the necessary evidence for inspectors; and time for the headteacher to make arrangements to be present for the inspection.[163] Mr Bangs said that NUT members were alarmed that the Chief Inspector appeared to be pandering to a perception that parents were in favour of without-notice inspection. Mr Bangs stated that he could find no evidence of such a wish on the part of parents.[164] However, a survey by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations of its members, which returned 2,226 responses, showed that over 60% of parents thought schools should receive without-notice inspections.[165] An Ofsted consultation found that 65% of parents would welcome a notice period shorter than two days.[166]

109. Cambridge Assessment[167] believed that formal inspection, which formerly focused on the quality of teaching at classroom level, had in recent years been redirected towards school-level performance as evidenced by qualification and national test results. Cambridge Assessment argued that inspection needed to refocus on interaction between teacher and pupil in the classroom in order to address the quality of educational provision.[168] The 2009 framework will focus more on classroom practice, although it remains to be seen whether, over a two-day inspection, this will achieve the rebalancing advised by Cambridge Assessment.

110. Some have claimed that parents' views have been marginalised in the shorter section 5 inspection regime and the increasing reliance on test data in forming inspection judgements. For example, previously, parents were interviewed by inspectors and were given the opportunity to have a full and frank discussion with inspectors. Under the current regime, they are sent questionnaires and this may be problematic in schools where parents have low levels of literacy, an aversion to filling out forms or where English may not be the first language.[169] In some cases, parents have found themselves in stark opposition to an Ofsted judgement which has had profound consequences for their school, but have found that there is little they can do to remedy what they see as an unfair judgment. There is a perception that Ofsted's complaints procedure, much of which is handled in-house, offers little hope of redress. On the other hand, the 2009 inspection framework does give parents the power to call for an inspection in cases where they have serious concerns.[170]

111. In general terms, we support the approach to inspection set out in the 2009 inspection framework. We consider that a frequency of inspection in proportion to a school's current levels of performance is sensible, although some concerns remain about identification of schools where there is an unexpected slide in performance. We consider that a short notice period for inspection is sensible, but schools must be given sufficient time to collate all the necessary evidence and ensure attendance of key personnel. Without-notice inspection is appropriate where there are particular concerns about performance, and safeguarding in particular, but this approach should not be used without good reason.

112. If visits to schools are to be as short as two days—and bearing in mind that some of those days will be taken up by preliminaries rather than by inspection itself—inspectors will need to be highly trained and well qualified if they are to make an accurate evaluation of school provision

113. We note drawbacks inherent in the use of "limiting judgments", in which a certain level of performance in a particular area (such as safeguarding or equality) has to be achieved if the school is to receive a "good" or "outstanding" grade overall. This can lead to strongly-performing schools being "tripped up" on a seemingly minor criterion, with no opportunity for strengths elsewhere in the school's provision to compensate. Examples recently reported by teacher unions and by the press include schools supposedly judged by Ofsted to be inadequate or failing overall because inspectors had not been asked for identification on arrival (thereby indicating security and safeguarding lapses). In another case, a fence surrounding the playground had been deemed by inspectors not to be high enough to prevent children from being snatched by outsiders: it was claimed that this had caused the school to be judged as "inadequate".[171] We have not, in the time available, established the accuracy of these claims; but we remind Ofsted of the need for transparency and publicity for the way in which inspection data are combined to form final judgments on schools.

114. We support the principle of increased emphasis on the views of pupils and parents, but we have some reservations about the level of responses to questionnaires, particularly for schools with a challenging intake. We urge Ofsted to make transparent the approach that inspectors will take when forming judgements on schools where there has been a low level of response to questionnaires from parents; and it should not rule out the possibility of meetings with parents.

THE NEED FOR AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTORATE

115. Ofsted stated that "Ofsted inspection provides an objective and independent evaluation, by a national body, working to an agreed framework and with no direct interest in the outcomes".[172] It not only inspects and regulates individual schools, but also produces more general reports which give a national picture of the strengths and weaknesses of particular aspects of school provision and inform the advice Ofsted gives to the Secretary of State.[173]

116. Ipsos Mori polls from both 2006 and September 2008 indicated that 92% of parents were in favour of external school inspection.[174] Witnesses to this inquiry have generally been in favour of an independent inspectorate, although not necessarily in agreement with the way the current inspection regime is run.[175] Keith Bartley, Chief Executive of the GTCE, stated that "It is vitally important that we have independent, authoritative, secure and robust voices offering commentary on the effectiveness of both national policy and its local translation into practice."[176] The National Association of Head Teachers was satisfied that an independent inspectorate is appropriate in principle, but considered that Ofsted fell short of this ideal, on the basis that its independence is compromised by Government pressure and inspections are unduly focused on attainment data and Government targets.[177] We note that the School Report Card Prospectus published alongside the 21^st Century Schools White Paper in June 2009 was produced jointly by the Department and Ofsted. Nevertheless, the Department itself said that it viewed Ofsted as an important part of the accountability framework, providing "external validation and challenge, the value of which is derived from the inspectors' independence."[178]

117. There is, then, support for an independent inspectorate in England. However, not all jurisdictions have an independent, national inspectorate. For example, when we travelled to the United States, we visited the New York City Department of Education, which does its own "quality reviews". These are similar to Ofsted inspection reports, setting out what a school does well and where it needs to improve. The reviews are "conducted by experienced educators and draw upon each school's collaborative self evaluation as well as conversations with the principal, teachers, staff, students, and parents. The reviewers assess student performance results and talk to principals, teachers, students, and parents to find out how schools use information about outcomes to guide teaching and learning and set goals for improvement".[179] The New York City Department of Education's description of this process looks very similar to the process employed by Ofsted, yet the "inspection" process is not independent from the Department of Education.

118. Much as in New York today, until 1992 Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI) was part of the Department for Education, reporting to the Secretary of State on the condition of the nation's education system. Some witnesses considered that this arrangement had had merit. John Dunford, General Secretary of the ASCL, told the Committee that, since the inspectorate had moved out of the Department, departmental policy had suffered as a result because of the lack of regular input from professional inspectors. Nevertheless, he considered Ofsted's independence to be important because of the need for it to stand between the Government and the profession. He thought that it should be reporting on both the effectiveness of individual schools and the effectiveness of the overall system without fear or favour. He argued that the former HMI attached to the Department had been much more concerned with reporting to government on the latter, whereas Ofsted was overwhelmingly concerned with the former. Dr Dunford thought that Ofsted should now move to a middle position (although it should be noted that Ofsted does still produce thematic reports on aspects of the schools system as a whole).[180]

119. An alternative view of the inspectorate was that it might work at a more local level. Before the creation of Ofsted, HMI had regional divisions and, separately, Local Education Authorities employed inspectors to inspect their schools. One of the reasons for the creation of Ofsted was the perception that there was too much variation between the practices of the different LEAs and that there was a need for national standardisation in inspection practices in order to raise educational standards across the board.[181] Nevertheless, some believe that Ofsted has gone too far. John Bangs, representing the NUT, told the Committee that the NUT would like to see "a more localised approach to a national framework". Rather than advocating local inspection, the NUT would like to see inspection teams more locally based than they are at present, inspecting other local authorities' schools within a national framework for quality assurance.[182]

120. We have found no strong evidence to suggest that there is an appetite for the complete abolition of Ofsted. When we put the question of abolition to Christine Blower, Acting General Secretary of the NUT, she replied, "I think it is important to have an inspector of schools, yes, and I think that it is important that there is an inspectorate that can publicly give an account of what is going on in schools, but that has to be a proper and genuine account that is based on the experience of colleagues in schools".[183] This, together with the evidence presented above, leads us to the conclusion that, although there may be some widespread concerns about the way the inspectorate operates, there is general support for the concept of Ofsted as an inspectorate independent from government.

121. We are persuaded of the need for an inspectorate, independent of government, which can assure the quality of provision in individual schools, as well as producing more general reports on aspects of the education system at a national level. We consider that the latter are particularly important, not least because they should provide a sound evidential basis for policy-making by the Government.

122. We have yet to see, however, whether the expansion of Ofsted's responsibilities over the years, to encompass not just inspection of schools but also of early years settings, colleges, initial teacher education, adult education, children's social care, and local authority children's services, is sustainable for a single organisation in the long term. The pressures placed on Ofsted by such a diverse and demanding range of duties could lead to a mass of competing priorities and a loss of direction. Both Ofsted and the Government should be alert to any sign that the growth of Ofsted's responsibilities is causing it to become an unwieldy and unco-ordinated body.

THE ROLE OF OFSTED IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

123. With the introduction of Ofsted in 1992 came a significant shift in the relationship between the inspectorate and schools and some argue that Ofsted now takes a more forceful role.[184] The statutory task of Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI) was not to become involved in school improvement but to report to the Secretary of State on the state of the nation's education. School improvement was the duty of the school, its governors and the local authority. In 1991, the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Major MP, expressed concern about standards in public services and, in relation to education, he was advised that inspection could be used as a tool to raise standards in schools. Inspections should be more frequent, with inspectors keeping professional distance from schools and teachers and focusing on the needs of pupils, parents, employers and taxpayers. It was decided that all schools should have a full inspection every four years and, for this reason, many more inspectors would need to be recruited. The number of Her Majesty's Inspectors (HMIs) were reduced and the additional numbers were mainly supplied by commercial companies.[185]

124. Ofsted would not report to the Secretary of State, as Her Majesty's Inspectorate had done; it would be independent and responsible for its own published reports. The practical implications of this included the fact that inspectors would no longer stand back from the detail of school improvement and report on the state of the nation's education, but were involved in judging individual schools on their performance and plans for improvement. They had the power to place schools in 'special measures', with significant impact on the school and local community.[186]

HMI INSPECTORS

125. Ofsted now employs some 200 HMI inspectors working on schools inspection; approximately 1,000 more are supplied by contractors to work full-time or part-time.[187] Longstanding contracts between Ofsted and external providers came to an end in August 2009. When the contracts for inspection from September 2009 onwards were let, the number of external providers was reduced from five firms to three: CfBT Education Trust, Serco Education, and Tribal Group.[188] Ms Gilbert acknowledged that HMI were generally "well respected" but she maintained that "additional inspectors are also good inspectors",[189] and she insisted that flexibility rather than cost was the reason for employing non-HMI inspectors.[190] However, we were told that the reduction in numbers of HMIs and the move towards inspection services provided by commercial companies was still mourned in some quarters.[191] The NUT reported from a recent survey of its members that the approval rating of HMI inspectors continued to be "relatively high";[192] and John Dunford, General Secretary of the ASCL, said that "we would much rather have a system in which HMI was always leading the teams".[193]

126. There seemed to be little direct evidence, however, of any major gulf between the quality of HMI inspectors and those supplied by external contractors. Some, such as the National Association of Head Teachers, had concerns about inspectors' experience and qualifications but did not explicitly attribute those concerns to the outsourcing of inspection.[194] A common view was that the quality of inspectors was variable or depended heavily upon the composition of the team itself.[195] On the other hand, the NFER told us that it had collected evidence indicating that those who had been inspected had "a very positive view of the professionalism and qualifications of inspectors".[196]

127. Ofsted maintains that additional inspectors—those not employed as HMIs—are "trained and extensively mentored, including supervised participation in 'live' inspection and grounding in ECM outcomes and safeguarding". It pointed out that no inspectors may undertake inspection without supervision until HMI have declared that they fulfil requirements. 75% of inspections of secondary schools and 85% of inspections of schools causing concern are led by HMIs.[197] We believe that Ofsted should aspire to have HMIs lead all inspections. Schools causing concern should always be inspected by a team headed by an HMI.

THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTION

128. Ofsted describes the purpose of inspection as being to provide an independent external evaluation of a school's effectiveness and a diagnosis of what it should do to improve. The inspection report presents a written commentary on the outcomes achieved and the quality of a school's provision, the effectiveness of leadership and management and the school's capacity to improve. Ofsted's inspections of schools perform three essential functions: providing parents with information; keeping the Secretary of State and Parliament informed about the work of schools; and promoting the improvement of individual schools, and the education system as a whole.[198] It has been relatively uncontentious in this inquiry that Ofsted's role includes providing information and the evaluation of standards of performance in schools. There has been an ongoing debate, however, about the precise role of Ofsted in school improvement.

129. Ofsted states that school inspection promotes improvement in a number of ways. The criteria for inspection and the guidance issued by Ofsted set expectations for standards of performance and effectiveness of schools. Where inspection endorses a school's assessment of its own performance, this increases the school's confidence; and a "sharp challenge" and motivation to act is given where inspectors disagree with the self-evaluation. The inspection report recommends priorities for future action and progress will be monitored where necessary. Inspection fosters constructive dialogue between inspectors and the senior leaders and staff of the school. Finally, Ofsted inspection complements the school's self-evaluation and promotes rigour, thereby enhancing the school's capacity to improve.[199]

130. The research evidence that Ofsted inspection can lead to improvement is mixed. Some research has found that, in schools where achievement was already much higher or lower than the average, Ofsted inspection was associated with slight improvements in GCSE achievement.[200] Other research has found a small negative effect associated with Ofsted inspection for the year of inspection.[201] A joint report by the Institute of Education and Ofsted in 2004 states that "inspection is neither a catalyst for instant improvement in GCSE results nor a significant inhibitor".[202] The precise effect of inspection on standards does not seem to be clear-cut.

131. Nevertheless, should the inspectorate seek to involve itself in school improvement above and beyond its duties to evaluate performance, diagnose problems and suggest solutions? There is support for the view that inspection and school improvement should be more closely linked, but this has been combined with the assertion that Ofsted is not achieving this link. Christine Blower told us of the NUT's concern that Ofsted was separated from the support for school improvement.[203] The inspection and wider accountability system "have failed to bring about sustained improvement because of their separation from developmental support and from schools' own improvement work".[204] A survey of NUT members revealed that they viewed Ofsted inspection as being separate from support for school improvement: inspections did not stimulate support or help from external sources to help schools improve.[205] Christine Blower thought that Ofsted should engage in a dialogue with a school, not only about what needed improving, but also about how improvement might be brought about.[206] John Dunford, General Secretary of the ASCL, was also of the view that there was no coherent relationship between external inspection and support for schools: an adverse Ofsted judgement led to several different bodies getting involved in supporting the school, which led the school to feel pressurised rather than supported.[207]

132. Over the years, different Chief Inspectors have placed a different emphasis on Ofsted's role in school improvement. David Bell, for example, was clear that Ofsted had no role in following up on school improvement.[208] Professor John MacBeath told us:

That has been an ongoing issue back and forward: should inspections, should Ofsted help to improve schools or should it simply conduct an evaluation and then leave it to others? I put that question to David Bell when he was chief of Ofsted—he is now Permanent Secretary. I said, "What about your strapline 'Improvement through inspection'?" He said, "Frankly, we don't." He said that inspection does not improve schools; on occasions, it is a very good catalyst and can help schools to rethink, but that is not the function of inspection.[209]

Professor MacBeath stated that he agreed that school improvement is not a function of inspection on the basis that, once inspection had taken place, it was then the role of others, such as local authorities, SIPs, other critical friends and even universities, to step in and work over time with the school to address the problems identified by Ofsted. He did not think that it was possible for Ofsted to be responsible for both accountability and improvement.[210] Martin Johnson of the ATL expressed a similar view. He argued that the drive for school improvement was often mistakenly conflated with the drive for school accountability. He noted the addition to Ofsted's statutory remit of a duty to encourage improvement, but stated that school improvement was not reflected in Ofsted practice, nor could it be: "The way to embed school improvement in our schools is not through accountability mechanisms, but through growing the culture of a school as a learning institution and a reflective one".

133. The current Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert, places considerably more weight than her predecessor on the capacity for Ofsted to bring about improvement. The precise term used in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 is that Ofsted and the Chief Inspector must perform their functions for the general purpose of encouraging the improvement of activities within their remit. The Chief Inspector explained her role to us as follows:

I took the Education and Inspections Act 2006 really seriously. I was new and the Act created my post and created the new Ofsted. That charged us with three things: regulating and inspecting to secure improvement, which was very different from what was there before; regulating and inspecting to secure the engagement of users, which meant pupils children and learners, essentially—parents and employers; and ensuring value for money. Those three things were set out very clearly in the Act. They influenced and informed all our planning and thinking at Ofsted.[211]

134. Despite the precise wording of the Act, the Chief Inspector clearly interprets her remit as "securing improvement" in schools.[212] In its submissions to this inquiry, Ofsted presented a variety of evidence to demonstrate its role in school improvement. It stated that teachers and parents agree that school inspection promotes improvement.[213] Ofsted cited research by the NFER and other statistics which it says provide "evidence that the inspection system contributes to improvement".[214] In its recent publication on the 2009 inspection framework, Ofsted stated that "We know, and independent research has confirmed, that regular monitoring of schools has a positive impact on improvement".[215] The Chief Inspector gave as further evidence that inspection leads to improvement the example of schools placed in categories of concern:

The evidence of schools being placed in the category of concern is really strong and has been strong for a number of years. If you look at the speed with which schools now go into special measures and come out of special measures, it is quicker than it ever was. In our surveys of head teachers, schools in special measures come absolutely at the top of the list on how effective the support from Ofsted has been. They say that they find the monitoring visits very helpful, not just in keeping the pace of progress going, but in helping them to be sharper about assessment, evaluation and so on. Our evidence shows that, as does the work done by the National Foundation for Educational Research.[216]

135. However, a close examination of Ofsted's position and evidence suggests that the reality is not so much that Ofsted secures improvement directly, but that it creates the conditions in which the improvement process can start, evolve and be monitored. The quotation above contains a statement which makes a very direct link between inspection or monitoring visits and improvement, yet it makes no mention of all the local authority resources, for example, which are devoted to schools in a category of concern. Diagnosis of problems, suggestions for action and discussions with inspectors may well be helpful to school leaders, but it is likely that they will receive much more time, detailed advice and support from other sources as a result of having been identified as causing concern. Despite her claims that inspection secures improvement in schools, the Chief Inspector has not, in our view, countered the proposition: that Ofsted identifies the issues which need to be addressed and may make suggestions about how they should be addressed, but it is mainly others that are addressing those issues directly and are active in improving school performance.

136. The evidence demonstrates that there are problems for schools which cannot access the support they need to secure their own improvement. It is certainly true that the variety of support available from both national and local sources could be bewildering to an already struggling school, still reeling from an adverse Ofsted judgement. School Improvement Partners (SIPs) may not have the time to assist in brokering and accessing this support to the extent that schools might like. Some schools may not have an ideal relationship with their SIP in any event: we saw in the previous chapter that there were concerns about the SIP as a local authority appointee, essentially "spying" on the school. Although we have received evidence of good practice in many local authorities, this is not universal.[217] The process by which schools access help and support certainly needs to be addressed and we consider that inspection and support for school improvement could be linked more closely. Nevertheless, we remain convinced that Ofsted is not the appropriate body to deliver the latter.

137. We note that Ofsted has a duty to encourage improvement in schools. However, we do not accept that Ofsted necessarily has an active role to play in school improvement. It is Ofsted's role to evaluate a school's performance across its many areas of responsibility and to identify issues which need to be addressed so that a school can be set on the path to improvement. Ofsted has neither the time nor resources to be an active participant in the improvement process which takes place following inspection, aside from the occasional monitoring visit to verify progress.

138. We recommend that Ofsted's role in school improvement be clarified so that the lines of responsibility are made clear to all those involved in the school system. Ofsted's function is a vital one: it is, in the purest sense, to hold schools to account for their performance. It is for others—schools themselves, assisted by School Improvement Partners, local authorities and other providers of support—to do the work to secure actual improvement in performance. The Chief Inspector already has a wide and important remit: she should feel no compulsion to make it wider.

THE EVALUATION OF PROVISION: THE NEED FOR A BALANCED PICTURE OF SCHOOL PROVISION

PERFORMANCE DATA BASED ON TEST RESULTS

139. School performance is multi-dimensional: academic attainment, happiness, take-up of extra-curricular activities, attendance rates, punctuality, health, safety, and levels of deviant or criminal behaviour (such as drug-taking), are all examples of things for which a school could be held accountable, to a greater or lesser degree. The Government emphasises the importance of indicators of pupil attainment, since "pupils' life chances are to a great extent determined by their attainment in school", but it says that performance data should not determine inspection judgements in a simplistic way.[218] Ofsted reports on a school's performance across a range of dimensions, including overall effectiveness; achievement and standards; personal development and well-being; quality of provision; and leadership and management. It has also been working on enhanced indicators of child well-being for incorporation into the 2009 inspection framework.

140. The extent to which Ofsted has been successful in producing a rounded account of school performance has been the subject of sustained debate. We have for a long time been alert to concern in the school education sector about the Government's standards agenda and the perception that Ofsted inspects in a manner tailored to this agenda.[219] This has placed a heavy emphasis on educational attainment over and above other aspects of school provision. We noted this position in our Report on Testing and Assessment and made recommendations about a move towards a more holistic evaluation of school performance.[220]

141. Many have claimed that Ofsted attaches overriding importance to statistical evidence of academic attainment derived from test and examination results and that this is problematic.[221] The recent origins of the problem appear to lie in the new 'light touch' inspection regime, introduced in 2005, as a result of which individual curriculum subjects have no longer been specifically scrutinised and schools have been judged chiefly on their performance data and self-evaluation. The previous inspection regime was considered burdensome, not least because of the length of each inspection. However, longer inspections did provide significant opportunities for lesson observation, and account was taken of a wide range of a school's activities. There is concern that, as inspections have become shorter, inspectors are forced to rely more heavily on data provided in advance and there is far less opportunity to witness the school at work in a more general sense. An NUT survey reveals a strong perception that test and examination results are relied on too heavily as indicators of quality, in part because inspectors now spend less time in schools. Respondents to the survey indicated that a "crude link" between test results and inspection grades meant that quality teaching in challenging schools was often marked down.[222] The Independent Schools Inspectorate emphasised the narrow range of school activity reflected in inspection reports:

Changes in the maintained school inspection framework in recent years have led to greater reliance on self evaluation and test and examination results. We would question whether the current inspection tariff for maintained schools provides sufficient opportunity for inspectors to directly observe practice in schools in order to test the validity of self-evaluation and to make a reliable assessment of the outcomes for pupils beyond test and examination results.[223]

This view has some support in evidence derived from a survey conducted by Phil Goss of University of Central Lancashire with the National Association of Head Teachers. A reduced emphasis on performance data in determining inspection outcomes was the change to the inspection system most commonly requested by respondents. Mr Goss thought that this indicated:

… a strength of feeling about the way data on testing and CVA may pre-determine inspection outcomes, particularly in Primary Schools; as well as how inspection grades arising from this may overlook the quality of work done with pupils generally, and the overall leadership in a school.

142. The Royal Statistical Society expressed the view that school inspections rely very heavily on performance statistics, yet inspectors, in many cases, had limited statistical expertise and inadequate statistical training.[224] The NFER noted the concerns of some schools inspected between October 2005 and March 2006 about the way performance data had been interpreted by inspectors. According to the NFER, this suggested a need for more consistency in the use and interpretation of data: it was now time that indicators of aspects of performance other than attainment should receive greater emphasis; and for more sophisticated indicators of pupil progress and school improvement to be developed.[225]

143. In 2006-07, 98% of the 6,331 primary schools inspected and 96% of the 1,281 secondary schools inspected received the same inspection verdict overall as they received for the 'achievement and standards' sub-heading. The association between overall verdict and other aspects of school life is much weaker. For example, 41% of primary schools received the same inspection verdict overall as they received for the 'enjoyment' sub-heading.[226] Ofsted has stated that "achievement is arguably the most important of all the grades. Other aspects of the report—personal development … leadership and management—all contribute to how well learners achieve".[227] From these figures, it seems that the method by which schools in need of improvement are currently identified places a very strong emphasis on test and examination results.

144. In our Report on Testing and Assessment, we concluded that we "would be concerned if Ofsted were, in fact, using test result data as primary inspection evidence in a disproportionate manner because of our view that national test data are evidence only of a very limited amount of the important and wide-ranging work that schools do".[228] In its response to our report, Ofsted stated that:

Solid evidence of performance through test and exam results, particularly in English and maths, is essential to learners' future access to employment. Proficiency in these subjects is also vital for access to a wider curriculum. Inspection evidence shows that the most successful schools focus on national testing and assessment without reducing creativity in the curriculum.[229]

The question is, "successful" on what terms: in terms of academic achievement or in terms of the provision of a balanced and rounded education to pupils? It was the importance of the latter which we have emphasised in our Reports on Testing and Assessment and the National Curriculum.

145. In May 2008, the Committee raised with the Chief Inspector the issue of the apparently strong correlation between a school's test results and its Ofsted category. The Chief Inspector responded that the focus on raw test scores shifted considerably with the introduction of contextual value added (CVA) scores, which measure the progression of pupils' attainment in the core subjects, taking into account the characteristics of a school's intake. She added that:

I do not think you would find a straight line between test results and what we are saying about overall effectiveness. I am pretty certain you would not. … I cannot stress enough the fact that it is based on the inspectors' judgments about the data, about what they see in the school, the judgments they make on what they see and hear, and on progress, which, for me, is absolutely key. The inspectors are looking at progress and outcomes and making a judgment using a whole range of indicators.[230]

146.  The Chief Inspector subsequently provided some further detail. Of the section 5 inspections carried out between 1 September 2007 and 31 May 2008, 39% of schools were graded as satisfactory in relation to the 'standards reached by learners'. The grades for 'overall effectiveness' (ie the summary judgement on the inspection report) for all those schools judged to have satisfactory 'standards reached by learners' are set out in Table 2 below. Just over half the schools received the same grades for 'overall effectiveness' as they did for 'standards reached by learners'. Just over 40% received a judgement on 'overall effectiveness' that was higher than the grade for 'standards reached by learners'. 3.5% of schools had satisfactory 'standards reached by learners' but were judged to be inadequate overall.Table 2

'OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS' GRADE FOR SCHOOLS JUDGED TO HAVE SATISFACTORY 'STANDARDS REACHED BY LEARNERS' PERCENTAGE

1  (outstanding) 3.4%

2  (good) 37.1%

3  (satisfactory) 55.9%

4  (poor) 3.5%

The Chief Inspector affirmed that:

The headline grade 'how well do learners achieve' given in inspection reports takes into account both standards (comparison with a national norm) and progress (this takes into account the value added by the school, and considers a variety of contextual factors and a range of first hand evidence gathered by inspectors). In reaching this achievement judgement greater weighting is given to the progress learners make.[231]

147. Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary received by this inquiry, Ofsted told us that "schools no longer feel that inspectors are over-reliant on data".[232] Ofsted stated that inspections look at more than just test data to assess the performance of a school. However, although good data are available to inspectors about standards and progress, Ofsted admits that the same is not true of all the Every Child Matters outcomes. Consequently, it told us that it has worked to improve the range of data available for the 2009 inspection framework.[233]

148. The 2005 inspection framework distinguished standards of attainment by learners from contextualised progression measures, and Ofsted told us that most emphasis was given to the progression measures. Under the 2009 framework, Ofsted proposes that the balance will be changed, so that attainment receives more emphasis than under the previous framework when judging how "pupils achieve and enjoy".[234] Arguably, this places more, not less, emphasis on raw scores as an indicator of performance, although we note that Ofsted has said that inspectors will spend much of their time observing classroom practice from September 2009.

149. The continuing focus of the 2009 inspection framework on core subjects during inspections is likely to remain unpopular. Respondents to an NUT survey thought that the revised inspection framework would do nothing to tackle the fundamental problems of the previous regime. Although this survey revealed an increased level of support for the view that inspection reports were generally accurate and fair, there was also an increased perception that inspection failed to assess accurately the value added by schools.[235] Nearly two thirds of the written comments submitted to the survey expressed a strong view that test and examination results were relied on too heavily as indicators of school quality. The NUT summarised the points raised:

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.[236]

150. It is likely that, as the 2009 inspection framework moves Ofsted towards attaching minimum expected results to inspection judgements and more frequent inspection of schools performing less well—judged largely according to test results—test scores and CVA measures will become more, not less, central to the inspection process. It is also important that inspectors, parents and other interested parties have a good understanding of a school's achievements compared with equivalent schools. To that end we recommend a review of the data underlying comparator measures or sets of measures to ensure that they accurately reflect the range of factors that can impact on school performance. Professor Stephen Gorard has described the dangers of a reliance on current measures of school effectiveness based on test scores and CVA:

School effectiveness is associated with a narrow understanding of what education is for. It encourages, unwittingly, an emphasis on assessment and test scores—and teaching to the test—because over time we tend to get the system we measure for and so privilege. Further, rather than opening information about schools to a wider public, the complexity of CVA and similar models excludes and so disempowers most people.

INDICATORS OF OTHER ASPECTS OF PROVISION

151. The lead inspector prepares a pre-inspection briefing for the school and the inspection team using a variety of materials, including:

data from the most recent RAISEonline report;[237]
the SEF or other self-evaluation presentation;
where relevant, sixth form performance indicators;[238]
the previous inspection report;
the reports from any other survey or inspection of the school carried out by Ofsted;[239]
information from any upheld complaints to Ofsted by parents about the school;
the results of any surveys showing the views of both the pupils and their parents; and
any additional information the school wishes to bring to the inspectors' attention.[240]

This inspection evidence can be categorised as performance data, self-evaluation, previous inspection reports and survey results. We have already discussed the issues surrounding the performance data and self-evaluation, and the previous inspection reports will have relied heavily on that information as it was at the time of the previous inspection. Until the inspection team has the opportunity to observe the school at first hand, the only additional information outside the closed system formed by the first three elements is the survey evidence on the views of pupils and parents.

152. There has been considerable movement over the years in terms of the extent to which parents and pupils are involved in the inspection process. As we have previously noted, before the 2005 framework was introduced, parents were invited to meetings with inspectors, and those who attended were given the opportunity to have a full and frank discussion face to face. Under the shorter Section 5 inspection regime introduced from 2005, there was no time for interviews in person and parents were sent questionnaires. The 2009 inspection framework states that inspectors will give particular priority to, amongst other things, gathering, analysing and taking into account the views of parents and pupils. In addition, from 2010, parents will be able to "influence the choice of which schools are to be inspected" where they have concerns about a school's performance.

153. From September 2009, Ofsted is conducting a trial study on the use of parent and pupil surveys. Many schools already commission their own surveys for the purposes of self-evaluation, but these will be standardised surveys administered nationally.[241] The Ofsted survey data is being used for a number of purposes, including the development of indicators of pupil well-being according to the Every Child Matters framework, and indicators of parents' and pupils' perceptions of school provision. These indicators will complement quantitative indicators derived from the National Indicator Set.[242] It is expected that these indicators will be used both to inform Ofsted inspection and for inclusion in the school report card.[243] The indicators of pupils' well-being and the school's contribution to it currently proposed are extensive and are presented in Box 1.BOX 1

The indicators of pupils' well-being and the school's contribution to it currently proposed are the extent to which the school:

promotes healthy eating, exercise and a healthy lifestyle and (for younger children) play;

discourages smoking, consumption of alcohol and use of illegal drugs and other harmful substances;

gives good guidance on relationships and sexual health;

helps pupils to manage their feelings and be resilient;

promotes equality and counteracts discrimination;
provides a good range of additional activities;
gives pupils good opportunities to contribute to the local community;
helps people of different backgrounds to get on well, both in the school and in the wider community;

helps pupils gain the knowledge and skills they will need in the future;

offers the opportunity at 14 to access a range of curriculum choices;
supports pupils to make choices that will help them progress towards a chosen career/subject of further study;

pupils feel safe;

experience bullying;
know who to approach if they have a concern;
enjoy school;
are making good progress;
feel listened to and are able to influence decisions in the school.

Source: Ofsted (June 2009) Indicators of a school's contribution to well-being

We are aware of the difficulty of developing a robust methodology for measuring against these indicators. If the time taken by the Department to develop satisfactory measures for Contextual Value Added scores is any guide, this process of development and refinement could take several years.

154. The Audit Commission highlighted the importance of involving parents in the inspection process as having a positive effect on children's learning; and it considered that a parental survey gave a clear message that their engagement was necessary and valued.[244] There are, however, problems with survey evidence and the methodological issues are well-known: the strength and validity of the indicators will only be as good as the survey instrument itself and its administration. In schools where parents have low levels of literacy, an aversion to filling out forms or where English may not be their first language, there may be low response levels to surveys and this will have a profound impact on the representative nature of the views expressed in the responses.[245] The NASUWT stated that it had no objection in principle to the contribution of parents' and pupils' views for accountability purposes, but considered that the use of surveys was problematic:

…views of pupils and parents on the quality of provision in schools may differ significantly depending on individual circumstances, such as whether a parent's child has SEN or accesses some other form of specialist service and … not all parents are inclined to or well placed to provide feedback in this way. This highlights the point that while information gathered in this way may be useful, a degree of caution has to be exercised over its use.

The Royal Statistical Society also urged caution in the use of survey data and it emphasised that the proxy nature of measures of well-being was pronounced. It therefore argued that "any attempts to use these for school accountability purposes should be viewed with even more care and indeed scepticism, than test and exam scores".[246] Professor John MacBeath was also concerned about the measurement of pupil well-being. He considered that some things defied quantification, and he disapproved of an approach which required well-being to be quantified in order to put it on an equal footing with the core curriculum.

155. Whatever the technical problems with gathering information on parents' and pupils' perceptions, the question remains: how should emphasis in the inspection judgement be balanced between academic attainment and pupil well-being? Ofsted stated that great importance will be attached to the "other" Every Child Matters outcomes as well as the "enjoying and achieving" outcome. Some witnesses thought that they deserved an equal emphasis on the basis that they are closely interlinked.[247] The National Governors' Association thought that schools should be held accountable for matters such as well-being, but only in the context of raising the standard of teaching and learning. Others were less specific, but approved an increased emphasis on well-being and thought that the current system did not reflect the importance of this aspect of school performance.[248]

156. We believe that there is a need to rebalance the emphasis of inspection judgements. Academic attainment is important for children's life chances and schools have a clear duty to ensure that each child achieves to the best of his or her ability. However, schools do far more for their pupils and the wider community than teaching academic subjects. Schools provide other learning and development activities, such as sport, music, drama, art and community work; and they have an effect on the take-up of extra-curricular activities, attendance rates, punctuality, health, happiness, safety, and levels of deviant or criminal behaviour. Schools clearly make a contribution to well-being in the sense encompassed by the Every Child Matters outcomes.

157. We consider that the quality of school provision beyond the teaching of academic subjects is extremely important and that Ofsted has a duty to reflect this in a fair and balanced manner in its inspection reports.

158. We have noted the concerns expressed by a significant number of witnesses that Ofsted places more emphasis on academic attainment, evidenced through test results and contextual value added measures, than on other aspects of a school's provision. Schools achieve much in terms of academic attainment that is not measured by test results and contextual value added measures, yet there is a perception amongst many schools that only attainment measured in this way is given significant weight in the inspection report. We have sympathy with the view, often expressed to us, that schools are not judged fairly on the full range of their performance. Given that much school activity cannot be measured in quantitative terms, it is important that inspectors spend as much time as possible observing practice in schools so that they do not rely too much on quantitative data.

159. We note that the 2009 framework emphasises that much of an inspector's time during an inspection will be spent observing lessons, and we consider this to be a good starting point. However, there is a dilemma here: on the one hand, there is a limited amount of activity that an inspection team can observe at first hand during a two-day visit; on the other hand, we would not wish to see a return to a very lengthy and burdensome inspection regime. We believe that the school's self-evaluation is important in directing inspectors' investigations beyond that which is measurable and this is another reason why it is vital for Ofsted to address our concerns about the rigidity of Ofsted's SEF (self-evaluation form) and the pressure on schools to use this standard form rather than some other form which works better for them.

160. An increased emphasis on involving parents and pupils more fully in the inspection process and on developing better indicators of pupil well-being are a welcome step in the right direction. However, we share the concerns of witnesses who warned that those aspects of well-being measured using survey evidence and standard indicator sets are a poor proxy for the true contribution made by schools to the well-being of pupils. We believe that Ofsted should strengthen its findings in this area by emphasising the importance of inspectors seeing for themselves the contribution that schools make in this area.

161. We urge Ofsted to rebalance its inspection framework in two ways, in order to reflect better the true essence of the school. First, when evaluating academic attainment, we recommend that Ofsted gives less evidential weight given to test results and derivative measures and gives more weight to the quality of teaching and learning observed by inspectors in the classroom. Second, when evaluating a school's performance in terms of pupil well-being and other non-academic areas, we recommend that Ofsted should move beyond the search for quantitative measures of performance and that it should focus more effort on developing qualitative measures which capture a broader range of a school's activity.

156 The most recent of these are: Oral and Written Evidence from 12 December 2007, 14 May 2008, 10 December 2008 and 9 February 2009, HC 70, Session 2008-09; Sixth Report of the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 165. We received a substantial amount of evidence to this inquiry about structural issues such as the complaints mechanism for those wishing to query the inspection process, and the competence of inspectors for the work they are doing. We have chosen not to present this evidence in our report as these are largely issues of detail which are more appropriately dealt with in our regular Work of Ofsted inquiries. Back

157 Ss 2 & 10 Children Act 2004 Back

158 Every Child Matters, September 2003, Cm 5860 Back

159 Ofsted (July 2009) The framework for the inspection in England under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, from September 2009, p5; para 4.31 Back

160 Ev 3 Back

161 Ev 116 Back

162 Ev 1; Ev 12; Ev 19 Back

163 Ev 8 Back

164 Q 30 Back

165 Ev 96 Back

166 Ev 150 Back

167 A department of the University of Cambridge, incorporating three examining boards Back