21 minute read
Ofsted inspection – a change for the better?
Leadership Focus journalist NIC PATON takes a look at the new Ofsted inspection framework.
At the end of the day, we aim to ... put the interests of children and young people first, by making sure inspection values and rewards those who educate effectively and act with integrity. We hope you will agree that this framework can be a real and positive step in that direction.”
So said chief inspector of education Amanda Spielman in her foreword to the Education Inspection Framework 2019, last spring’s consultation document on Ofsted’s proposed new inspection framework that, since the beginning of the current school year, has become a reality on the ground for schools up and down England.
Five months in, is the new framework and inspection process, therefore, a “real and positive step”, as Amanda has suggested? Has it changed things for the better? Has it led to a less confrontational, less high-stakes, more consensual and constructive approach to inspection and accountability?
It may only be a snapshot, but the initial verdict of NAHT members is very much that the new framework ‘requires improvement’. In fact, if anything, fears are growing that the new framework has the potential to have an even more corrosive effect on teachers and school leaders’ morale and retention than the unlamented regime it has replaced.
Take these comments from an NAHT member in Essex: “By the end of the first day, they were talking about us being in ‘requires improvement’. It was terrible. I actually wrote a letter of resignation the following morning and sent it to one of my governors.”
Or (again as we shall come to shortly) these from an executive head in the north of England: “It was quite a damaging process; it was definitely worse, undoubtedly worse, than the previous inspections.”
Or, as another NAHT member puts it: “I’ve had head teachers saying to me that it was brazen and gruelling and very demoralising.”
“What we’re finding from members is that the stakes are just as high as they always were; the fear is just as significant as it always has been,” agrees Ian Hartwright, NAHT senior policy adviser.
NAHT has published advice for members on what to expect under the new inspection framework and how to prepare (see the end of this article). But there is concern about the anecdotal feedback coming back from members on the ground. The sense is of an inspection framework and regime that remains overly rigid and inflexible, which can put teaching staff (especially at primary level) under unreasonable pressure and expectation, and which has lost none of its high-stakes confrontational approach.
“Ofsted is now very focused on what the curriculum planning and delivery look like. Why particular knowledge has been selected, how it is sequenced and embedded, and how it links to the next stages of development” says Ian.
“Our problem with this is not that we don’t think the curriculum is important – we do. Our 2018 Improving School Accountability report was clear about the importance of a broad, rich curriculum and the need to dial down reliance on data. But we feel the new quality of education judgement simply encourages schools to play a new game; it is driving new workload and unintended consequences.
“We are finding, in particular, that schools are struggling with the new emphasis on the curriculum. The head will often say they can feel like a spare part once the 90-minute pre-inspection phone call is complete. The inspectors conduct their ‘deep dives’ into the curriculum and, particularly in a primary school, that will involve them talking to classroom teachers who might have oversight of the subject area.
“In some cases, we’re hearing that members and staff have found this very, very difficult. They’ve been asked very searching questions, often very early in the school year, without a recognition that they’re not curriculum specialists. In primary schools, subject areas are typically coordinated by individual class teachers, rather than being led by qualified curriculum specialists, as is usual in secondary schools. Members are telling us a key problem is that the inspection methodology attempts to apply a secondary lens through which to evaluate and judge primary provision.
“We were clear there is also too much in the framework for inspectors to get through in the time available. It is obvious inspectors are really struggling to complete the tasks they are being asked to do in the time available,” Ian adds.
“Typically, comments are ‘the inspectors were really rushed’, ‘they did not have time to talk to me’, ‘I wanted to give them other evidence, but they did not have time to see that’ and ‘they were there until 10pm when they were supposed to be gone by 6pm’. I’ve spoken to heads who have told me the inspector was having a conversation with a member of staff and then said ‘I’m sorry you’ve only got 20 more seconds to tell me what you need to tell me’. They then cut them off after that.
“The inspectors are also clear now that they will refuse to look at any internal data the school has. And we think that is a real problem. I’ve even heard on several occasions that inspectors are refusing to consider the statutory data as well. And we’re picking up quite a lot of feedback from members that Ofsted’s recommendations have been based on a single lesson observation.
“The worry about all of this is that it is very subjective, or even impressionistic, and based on very small numbers. These ‘deep dives’ are not representative of the school as a whole. And individual teachers, especially in very small schools, are being put under a lot of pressure. In one small school, at the end of the inspection, the head teacher said her three sole teachers all wanted to leave – they were young staff, two-three years’ experience, all really good teachers and all of the outcomes were good. But, the staff felt it was a very bruising experience. There is a real risk this inspection framework will undermine the Department for Education’s recruitment and retention strategy,” says Ian.
NAHT member Simon [not his real name], an executive head of a MAT in the north of England, experienced the new inspection process in September. Both he and the head teacher of the school being inspected, one of a number within the MAT, came away feeling mauled.
“I have been an Ofsted inspector previously. So I have seen things from both sides of the aisle, and I am well aware of what goes into it,” he tells Leadership Focus. “Historically, it had been a very successful school. Having worked closely with the head teacher, our self-evaluation was that the school was securely ‘good’, and in many areas, it was highly effective. Around behaviour, attendance and outcomes, we judged the school to be highly effective, moving into ‘outstanding’.
“We got the call right at the beginning of the term – on day five of the new school year, which was the first possible day they could inspect. The nursery children were only on day two, so they had been in the day previously, but with their parents. For the nursery children, it was their first day of school on their own.
“We had two inspectors plus one quality-assuring the inspection. There had been three phone calls with the head teacher through the course of the day before, mostly just going through timetabling issues and talking through everything. So that was all fine, and it seemed to be going well.
“On the first morning of the inspection, however, they did a ‘deep dive’ into phonics and reading. The head had explained the children were being baselined to see whether they were still at the place they had been assessed as being at the end of the summer term. She explained the new phonics groups were going to start the following week once everybody was sure of the level the children were working at.
“But very quickly they started coming back and saying there was insufficient challenge and the children were doing things they could already do. We obviously said ‘that’s what we told you. We’re just checking out this week before we set them up in their new groups’. But they didn’t think that was good enough; they said there should be challenge from day one.
“In the afternoon, they did a‘deep dive’ into geography. The children had done some work about the UK in year one. And they were going on to a topic about the wider world in year two. One of the inspectors went into the year two class, and the children were using Google Earth and looking at continents and capital cities. But it was their first lesson on this new topic.
“The inspector asked the year two children to tell them about cities and counties in England, and some of the children got confused. They asked one of them about the capital of England, and I think he said Paris. When they came back, they said the children’s knowledge of geography from year one wasn’t secure and the teacher had not done enough to check that out before she started to move on to the next level.
“So we went ‘hang on a minute; this morning you told us recapping on prior knowledge was bad, and now this afternoon you’re telling us that, before starting this new topic, they should have recapped on prior knowledge?’. They didn’t have a lot to say about that, but their judgement was they didn’t feel the pace of learning was quick enough because of what they’d found in geography.
“By the end of the day, they were pretty down on the school. And when the report came out, the first line said ‘continues to be a good school, but inspectors have some concern that standards may be declining’. For me, that is a real concern because there is nothing to indicate in any of the standards that this school is declining in any shape or form.
“I know what a ‘requires improvement’ (RI) school looks like; we have RI schools within our trust. There is no way on earth that school was ‘inadequate’ or RI on any measure. It was quite a damaging process; it was definitely worse, undoubtedly worse, than the previous inspections. For the head, it was her first inspection as a head, and for the staff, it was quite a damaging process too,” says Simon.
“I’ve had head teachers saying to me that it was brazen and gruelling and very demoralising,” agrees Evelyn Davies, head teacher at Coldfall Primary School in Muswell Hill, north London.
Evelyn’s school has been ‘outstanding’ for its previous three inspections, the last of which was in 2014, so she has not yet personally experienced an inspection under the new framework. But such has been the concern building up locally in her area that a number of head teachers have put together a discussion document they hope to submit to Ofsted.
“In the sense that the framework seems to have shifted its focus to the breadth and balance of teaching a wide range of subjects really well, that’s a good thing in my view. We had too much emphasis on the basics and on, obviously, the testing, the data and the whole thing about progress. At the end of the day, it is the outcomes and the attainment that really count,” she says.
“However, heads here have expressed concern around the rapidness of the change and some of the horror stories they have heard. One, to be fair, said she had a positive experience and the inspector had been very positive and helpful. Two others, however, were very negative and said they had a very harsh and difficult time.
“I’ve heard of one head who had a subject ‘deep dive’ inspection and was left very, very demoralised. She leads an Ofsted-graded ‘outstanding’ school and was essentially told if she had a full inspection, it would not remain ‘outstanding’ anymore. She felt the questions and expectations were unreasonable.
“I’ve been a head for a long time and seen a lot of different frameworks. To me, this is a little bit reminiscent of when the 1989 national curriculum was introduced. We had these 12 folders, I remember them when I was a teacher, one for each subject on my shelf in my classroom. But we were all totally overwhelmed because of the subject knowledge required on every single subject. Within five years, the Dearing Review threw it out as being too unwieldy.
“You’ve got primary teachers feeling that suddenly they have to be absolute specialists –like secondary teachers, but in 11 subjects – and that is just never going to be possible. I don’t disagree that you want really good teaching of foundation subjects. But it is about balance, about what is manageable within the school timetable, and a balanced curriculum and in terms of what is manageable for teachers. Why have we got stuck with this system where everyone lives in fear and terror of it? It just shouldn’t be like that,” says Evelyn.
“We think the inspectorate needs a different role. Ofsted should focus on those schools facing challenging circumstances,” emphasises Ian. “And it should have sufficient resource to inspect those schools and develop a deeper diagnostic that helps the school to understand where improvement is most needed so that support can be precisely targeted to the maximum effect. For schools that are already ‘good’, inspection should be lighter touch, and we think there should be a new way of defining excellence across the system.
“The feedback we are getting from members is that these new inspections are rushed; there is also a greater degree of subjectivity, a reluctance to look at the evidence and very heavy pressure on classroom teachers and subject leaders, which is creating significant additional workload, especially in primary schools,” Ian adds.
GARY SMITH IS EXECUTIVE HEAD OF MARKET FIELD SCHOOL IN COLCHESTER, ESSEX, A SPECIAL SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AGED BETWEEN FIVE AND 16.
“I have been at Market Field School for more than 30 years, 25 of them as head teacher. We had been an ‘outstanding’ school since 2007 –until our latest inspection in October.
“For me, the old inspections weren’t antagonistic and confrontational. They were actually supportive and enjoyable – a celebration of what we were doing. The three previous inspections were led by people who had been special school head teachers. But this time, there was only one who was a practising special school head teacher, although she was absolutely brilliant.
Gary Smith
“I knew the framework had changed, and it was going to start with a two-hour phone call. I already had concerns about that because the lead inspector was quizzing me about the curriculum. Our children with autism have severe and complex needs, and so while we might follow a curriculum, it might not be readily identified as the national curriculum. In the past, that’s never been questioned because it has been about the needs of the children, not the needs of the curriculum. My view is the child doesn’t fit the school, the school fits the child.
“She [the lead inspector] was quizzing my head of autism about why we’re not doing English, maths and science following the national curriculum for children with the most severe needs. He fielded that OK, I felt, but hindsight being what it is, I should have realised something was amiss.
“It was the process for the next day that started to give me real concerns. I did not have any scheduled ‘keeping in touch’ sessions with the lead inspector. And when I did try, it was quite challenging. I felt if I challenged them, they then set me a challenge back rather than listening to what I was saying.
“I let my head of school go round with the lead inspector; that was fine. But what bothered me was that they and my middle leaders bore the brunt of some quite intensive discussions. I had members of staff in tears afterwards, and that’s wrong. I had some very talented and dedicated teachers in tears.
“I got the feeling the lead inspector was philosophically juxtaposed to me. My adage has always been if children can’t learn the way we teach, then we teach the way they learn. We’re a special school, and if one standardised practice hasn’t worked, you look at what will.
“But by the end of the first day, they were talking about us being in ‘requires improvement’. It was terrible. I actually wrote a letter of resignation the following morning and sent it to one of my governors. Parents got wind of it and were up in arms; they were banging on the door saying they wanted to talk to the inspection team.
“And the children themselves knocked the inspectors dead with how they talked about the school. They spoke really passionately and had a real sense of pride about the school. So, the actual report in the end, now that it is published, wasn’t so bad. We were rated ‘good’ with ‘outstanding’ elements, especially the personal development of pupils.
“But overall, the whole process for me felt worse, a step back. I felt, during the three previous inspections, there had been professional dialogue. But for this one, there wasn’t.”
THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The new Ofsted inspection framework naturally only applies to schools in England. But there is also change afoot in terms of inspection and accountability in Wales and Northern Ireland.
In Wales, Estyn is going through a review process following Graham Donaldson’s A Learning Inspectorate Review, which was published in 2018. A Welsh government consultation on inspection arrangements from September 2021 closed in December.
This included a range of proposals around overall summative gradings, the areas Estyn should inspect, inspecting A level/vocational learning in sixth forms, the notice period for an inspection and follow-up activity in maintained schools.
As NAHT senior policy adviser Rob Williams explains: “As part of all the accountability changes taking place in Wales, Estyn will – or should – have a very, very different role. What it should be doing is almost quality-assuring a school’s self-evaluation processes and saying how well schools are able to harness their school improvement, and just quality-assuring that rather than coming in and simply making summative judgements every inspection cycle.
“In terms of the policy line of travel, we’re quite happy about it, but in terms of the detail that is sitting below, there are still some concerns. We feel strongly that Estyn should be part of facilitating schools to be able to shape and steer their school improvement. At the moment, there’s some push-back from Estyn because it is saying the primary legislation doesn’t allow it to do that.
“NAHT, therefore, maybe needs to start pushing back to assembly members and others to say ‘look, if it’s not fit for purpose, do we need to review the primary legislation?’. It is all about recognising Estyn’s role in the wider accountability changes that are coming forward in Wales, providing the inspectorate with a clear remit and ensuring its role is appropriate going forward,” he says.
Within Northern Ireland, while there has technically been no change to the way the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) carries out its statutory inspection duties, in reality, the ongoing industrial action by teachers since 2011 and, as of October, by NAHT members too has markedly changed the inspection landscape.
As NAHT Northern Ireland former interim director Alice Adams Lemon explains: “The struggle has been how does the ETI inspect schools when there has been a lack of cooperation from the teaching unions, who are on legitimate action short of strike? So, while the framework hasn’t changed, in reality, the position of the unions has forced things to be changed in practice. And now NAHT (NI) is on action short of strike, too, and part of our action also specifically relates to ETI.
“What we’re looking for is an independent complaints process for ETI. But we do not know what is going to come out of this; it is all work in progress. So, it is very much ‘watch this space’.
“Aspart of our action short of strike, we are now no longer engaging with the ETI except on safeguarding issues. We had an arrangement with ETI before as to how we would navigate our way through inspections in the context of the wider trade dispute with the teachers. Now when inspectors come in, all our members will engage with is the safeguarding element of any inspection.
“Even if there is no change, the inspection framework is now so dishevelled by all of the different actions going on, and even if things eventually go back to the way they are supposed to be, that in itself would be a massive change. People have been on strike here for eight years. There are teachers coming into the profession who have never been through a ‘normal’ inspection,” Alice points out.
WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE NEW INSPECTION FRAMEWORK
NAHT has issued guidance for members about what to expect from the new framework when inspectors call. This is an abridged summary.
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION
‘Outstanding’ schools, except for special and nursery schools, continue to be exempt from Section 5 inspection, subject to Ofsted’s risk assessment.
‘Good’ and non-exempt ‘outstanding’ schools will normally be inspected about every four years, either via a full two-day Section 5 inspection or a two-day Section 8 inspection, which will check whether the school remains ‘good’.
‘Requires improvement’ (RI) schools will normally be inspected under Section 5 within 30 months. Schools that have received more than one consecutive RI judgement may receive a monitoring inspection.
PRE-INSPECTION
Head teachers will be notified of an inspection between 10.30am and 2pm on the day before the inspection. Ofsted can, however, inspect without notice where there are very serious concerns, in which case, notification takes place about 15 minutes before inspectors arrive on site.
Normally the inspection will last two days, regardless of whether it is a full Section 5 or Section 8 inspection.
Ofsted dropped its proposal for onsite preparation. Instead, it has introduced a 90-minute phone call between the lead inspector and head teacher, which will happen in the afternoon before the onsite inspection begins the following day.
This may be split into two separate calls: one on the school’s context, progress, strengths and weaknesses; the other on the planning and practical arrangements for the inspection. This conversation will set the tone and inspection trails for the following two days.
The head or deputy (in the head’s absence) will be expected to set out the following:
• The school’s context and progress made since the previous inspection, including progress against areas that were identified for improvement in the most recent inspection report
• An assessment of the school’s current strengths and weaknesses; this will be related, in particular, to the curriculum, standards, behaviour and personal development
• Specific areas that the inspection should focus on (including subjects, year groups and aspects of provision).
THE INSPECTION PROCESS
On the first day of the inspection, you must supply specific documents to the inspectors by 8am. These can be found in paragraph 53 of the inspection handbook.
If you have any problems or issues with an inspector, the team or their work, we advise you to raise these during the inspection. While some matters may be resolved by speaking to the lead inspector, you can also call our advice helpline (call 0300 30 30 333 and select option one) for further advice.
For a full (Section 5) inspection, inspectors will make four new graded judgements. These are as follows:
1 Quality of education
2 Behaviour and attitudes
3 Personal development
4 Leadership and management.
Ofsted will continue to grade schools overall as ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’.
QUALITY OF EDUCATION JUDGEMENT
The centrepiece of Ofsted’s new framework is the new quality of education judgement. This broadly encompasses the ground covered previously by the judgements made on outcomes for pupils; and teaching, learning and assessment.
The evaluation of the school’s curriculum will be critical to this judgement, having been moved and expanded in scope from its previous location within the leadership and management judgement.
Inspectors have been trained to inspect through the “prism” of the curriculum. Ofsted has created a new nomenclature to describe this: curriculum “intent, implementation and impact”. Leaders may, therefore, want to ensure they are well prepared to talk with authority about their school’s curriculum in a manner that will allow inspectors to grasp the key points.
Inevitably, schools will want to consider their curriculum in light of the new framework requirements. NAHT’s pressure has resulted in the inspectorate recognising many schools won’t be in a position to do this from September 2019. The handbook is clear that the inspection of “curriculum intent” will be phased over the next academic year. As part of the inspection process, ‘deep dives’ will take place to interrogate aspects of provision. Again, there is more detail on these in the handbook.
Bear in mind that inspectors will only consider statutory data, not in-school data. Ofsted’s inspection data summary report (IDSR) will, therefore, be an important source for inspectors’ initial evidence gathering and is likely to influence initial inspection evidence trails.
Inspectors are likely to be more interested in what in-school data is used for and the burdens on staff associated with collecting it, rather than pupils’ flightpaths or trajectories.
The weight that will be attached to progress and attainment data by inspectors is unclear, but it is likely to vary depending on the circumstances of the inspection.
Our full guidance can be found here: www.naht.org. uk/advice-and-support/structures-inspection-andaccountability/ofsted-inspections-from-september-2019/.
The School Inspection Handbook can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843108/ School_inspection_handbook_-_section_5.pdf.
