Letter from Christine Gilbert, Her Majesty's
Chief Inspector, Ofsted, dated 27 February 2011
I was pleased to have the opportunity to appear before
Members recently to give evidence as part of the inquiry into
our role and performance. The Committee's scrutiny is a key accountability
mechanism for Ofsted, and I welcome the chance to respond to questions
and present our view.
During the proceedings, you asked various questions
about quality assurance and the processes Ofsted has in place
with the inspection service providers, as well as details of performance.
I hope you find the information in this letter useful.
BACKGROUND
Inspection service providers are contracted by Ofsted
to administer and carry out inspections of schools and learning
and skills providers (CfBT, Serco and Tribal) and the inspection
of early years providers (Prospect and Tribal). Ofsted's social
care inspections are administered and carried out by inspectors
employed directly by Ofsted. All these arrangements are subject
to stringent monitoring, which includes a range of checks and
measures to assure the quality of inspectors, inspections and
inspection reports.
To ensure good quality, inspection service providers
select and train their additional inspectors carefully[33]
and follow this up with regular visits to inspections, the scrutiny
of reports, and the issue of regular updates to inspectors. Feedback
from schools and other providers about the quality of inspection
is gathered together into monthly reports, which are considered
about each inspection service provider in (a) monthly contract
programme board meetings with Ofsted and (b) quarterly National
Programme Board meetings.
Ofsted carries out a range of quality assurance activities
for inspections. The latter are led by additional inspectors from
the inspection service providers, by Her Majesty's Inspectors
(HMI) and by regulatory inspectors who are employed directly by
Ofsted. Ofsted's current national quality assurance team was set
up in September 2009. It comprises administrators, full-time early
years quality managers, regulatory inspectors and specialist,
experienced HMI and regulatory inspectors from across all remits.
These undertake the core quality assurance work.
HMI and the other inspectors who carry out quality
assurance work for Ofsted are specialists in their field. They
make on-site visits to assure the quality of inspections and the
work of inspectors (approximately 5% of all inspections); undertake
in-depth evidence reviews of a proportion of all inspections and
all those judged to be inadequate (approximately 6% of all inspections);
sign-off all school and children's social care reports and a proportion
of all other reports; return reports to the inspection service
providers where these require further work and raise any concerns
as needed. They also provide a help-line for inspectors to advise
on judgements.
If a report does not meet the standard for publication,
it is returned to the inspection service provider or inspector
before it is sent to the school/provider or published. It may
be returned for a variety of reasons: a discrepancy between the
judgement grades and the supporting text; a discrepancy between
judgements; an omission of key points which must be covered within
an aspect of the report; a lack of precision in recommendations
or actions for further improvement and excessive errors in the
text.
If any school, learning and skills or early years
report is deemed unfit for publication by the Ofsted quality assurance
team, it is referred to the inspection service provider. If this
occurs, it appears as an exception on a monthly contract report,
which has an adverse effect on key performance indicators. Social
care reports are referred back to the inspector and the line manager.
INSPECTORS' PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
Ofsted has high expectations of HMI and all other
inspectors who carry out work on its behalf. As a matter of course,
inspectors are held to account for the quality of their work,
including the inspections they lead, and this is reinforced through
established and rigorous performance management systems. Feedback
about HMI and regulatory inspectors' performance is used in performance
reviews. Performance reviews draw on evidence from quality assurance
visits, review of inspection evidence bases, any complaints or
commendatory letters received, specific visits to inspections
for performance management purposes that are undertaken by both
Ofsted's quality assurance team and by senior inspectors, and
school and other provider responses to post-inspection questionnaires.
Similar arrangements apply to additional inspectors and are a
contractual requirement.
IMPROVING INSPECTION
THROUGH QUALITY
ASSURANCE
All quality assurance activities result in written
evaluations of the quality of the inspection and/or of the work
of the inspector. This is shared with individual inspectors and
their managers in line with our expectation that all inspectors
should constantly strive to improve the quality of their work.
Regular updates about the quality of inspection are
provided to policy colleagues in Ofsted's Development Directorate
to ensure that inspection guidance, revisions to frameworks, and
future inspector training take full account of trends and lessons
learned.
PERFORMANCE OF
INSPECTION SERVICE
PROVIDERS
Each inspection service provider meets regularly
with senior Ofsted managers to review performance. Each quarter,
a performance report is produced and presented at what is called
the National Programme Board. The following extract is taken from
the summary section of the most recently approved national report
for education and learning and skills inspection remits.
For the period July-September 2010, the performance
of ISPs continues to improve and build on the significant improvements
achieved in previous quarterly reports. The concerted efforts
of inspection service providers and Ofsted staff to resolve data
flow difficulties have resulted in nearly all key performance
indicators having data to indicate performance levels. It is now
unusual for key performance targets not to be met. Efforts to
meet the challenging target for inspection service providers to
increase the deployment of inspectors from minority ethnic backgrounds
appears to be progressing well.
The school inspection remit has seen further improvements
and it is rare for the exacting standards expected not to be achieved.
The level of satisfaction with inspection experienced by headteachers
continues to exceed the performance target. The only area where
performance continues to be below the expected standard is in
the return rate for post inspection questionnaires.
The strong improvement in performance in the independent
school inspection remit, identified in the previous reporting
period, has been maintained and in some areas improved further.
Intervention by Ofsted to secure inspection quality is rare. A
small number of reporting deadlines have, however, been missed.
The return rate for post inspection questionnaires continues to
be low and remains a concern.
The performance of inspection service providers
in the learning and skills inspection remit continues to improve.
Inspection service providers have performed very well in terms
of the timeliness in notifying providers and ensuring the necessary
documents are available for inspectors. The successful submission
of datasets identified as a major strength in the previous report
continues overall.
Performance for initial teacher education inspections
is good and all performance indicators have been met apart from
the unsuccessful submission of one dataset in July. The process
for completing and processing the inspections has been very effective.
POST INSPECTION
QUESTIONNAIRES
The following extract is taken from the most recently
approved national report on the performance of education and learning
and skills inspection remits.
Maintained schools
The level of satisfaction with the inspection
experienced by headteachers continues to exceed the performance
target. Over the last three reporting periods the level of satisfaction
has remained high and above 90%. This performance indicates that
maintained schools continue to be satisfied with their inspections.
The only area where performance continues to be below the expected
standard is in the return rate for post inspection questionnaires.
This is an area of concern identified in the previous national
reports.
SINCE SEPTEMBER 2009
| KPI 1.8.2
% of responses received about the inspection process that are positive
| ISP 1
End of Aug
90% |
| ISP 2
End of Aug
94% |
| ISP 3
End of Aug
90% |
All inspection service providers are maintaining consistently
strong performance above the expected target for this key performance
indicator. Provisional figures to be shared with inspection service
providers shortly indicate that satisfaction rates are continuing
to rise. The provisional figure for the contract period is 93%
overall.
SINCE APRIL 2010
| KPI 1.8.2
% of responses received about the inspection process that are positive
| ISP 1
End of Aug
89% |
| ISP 2
End of Aug
96% |
| ISP 3
End of Aug
93% |
All inspection service providers are maintaining consistently
strong performance above the expected target for this key performance
indicator. Provisional figures for the end of September indicate
that 95% of responses overall are positive.
SINCE SEPTEMBER 2009
|
KPI 1.9.2
% of responses received satisfied with the clarity of the inspection report
| ISP 1
End of Aug
95% |
| ISP 2
End of Aug
97% |
| ISP 3
End of Aug
95% |
SINCE APRIL 2010
|
KPI 1.9.2
% of responses received satisfied with the clarity of the inspection report
| ISP 1
End of Aug
97% |
| ISP 2
End of Aug
98% |
| ISP 3
End of Aug
97% |
This key performance indicator is being reported for the first
time in the national report. All inspection service providers
are achieving very good performance that is above the expected
target.
Learning and skills
Feedback from provider surveys
Analysis of responses received by 30 September 2010 show that
the national overall response rate was 49% for IE1 (Post Inspection
Evaluation) and 25% for IE2 (Post Inspection Report Evaluation).
Responses to key questions show that:
- 99% agreed or strongly agreed that the inspection process
was led and managed well by the Lead Inspector.
- 95% agreed or strongly agreed that the judgements in the
report overall were fair and accurate.
Time that has elapsed since additional inspectors worked in schools,
for example, as teachers or senior leaders
Finally, an analysis of additional inspectors contracted with
Serco, Tribal and CfBT, based on a sample of 1,104 additional
inspectors, indicates that over half (57%) are current practitioners
or worked in schools less than five years ago. A further 19% worked
in schools between five and 10 years ago. Only one in five additional
inspectors worked in schools 10 or more years ago. A very small
minority (2%) of additional inspectors has no teaching experience.
33
Schedule 12 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires
that an additional inspector must be supervised by an HMI when
conducting a school inspection, or to have previously conducted
a section 5 inspection under the supervision, and to the satisfaction
of, an HMI, as follows:
11 (4) The Chief Inspector may not authorise an additional
inspector to conduct an inspection of a school under section 5
of EA 2005 unless-(a) the inspection is to be supervised by an
HMI, or (b) the additional inspector has previously conducted
an inspection under that section under the supervision of an HMI
to the satisfaction of the HMI. Back
| 
