Lambeth Teacher with Lambeth NUT

Contents:

INTRODUCTION

During the Autumn Term 2001 OFSTED is due to issue a public consultation on how inspection practice might develop for the third round of inspections, which starts in September 2003 for secondary schools. Early indications are that any proposals for change will be relatively minor. The NUT will, of course, respond in full to any future OFSTED consultation and will advise members of the implications of any changes.

The information contained within this briefing document is based on the latest advice to OFSTED inspectors. The advice is available on the OFSTED website at www.ofsted.gov.uk/about under the menu on the left-hand side of the screen under “Briefings: Inspectors”.

From September 2001, school sixth forms will receive greater attention during OFSTED inspections and these new requirements have set out in a supplement to the secondary Handbook Inspecting School Sixth Forms. Copies of this supplement will be sent to all LEAs and schools with sixth forms. It is available on OFSTED's website http://www.ofsted.gov.uk and from OFSTED publications 0870 600 5522.

The changes are designed to bring sixth-form inspections and college inspections into line. The main features of the new arrangements are:

• the allocation of additional inspector days to the full and short inspections of schools with sixth forms;
• the sampling by inspectors of work across the sixth form curriculum and the inspection the standards and quality in some subjects in detail;
• an emphasis on aspects of the sixth form, such as the support and guidance of students, assessment, curricular opportunities and the effect of leadership and management on the sixth form;
• the use of a modified section 10 Schedule in the sixth form closely aligned to the Common Inspection Framework used in colleges;
• changes to the inspection reports for schools with sixth forms so that features of the sixth form are distinctive - there will be a sixth-form annex to the summary report, and sixth-form subjects will be in a separate section;
• the facility for schools to choose whether or not to use optional students' questionnaires to gain the views of students about their sixth forms; and
• a requirement within the Learning and Skills Act for inspectors to report formally where schools have ‘inadequate' sixth forms leading to continued monitoring and re-inspection similar to a school in special measures.

Union advice to secretaries is being prepared on Post-16 inspections which will cover inspections of school sixth forms as well as sixth form colleges.

PRE-INSPECTION COMMENTARY

Before the inspection, a briefing known as the ‘pre-inspection commentary’ will be prepared for each member of the inspection team. This will generally be written by the registered inspector and be based on the evidence drawn from the pre-inspection meetings, the documentation and the parents’ meeting. On the basis of this commentary, most of the issues to be addressed during the inspection will be predetermined. Each inspector, therefore, will approach the week with a number of draft hypothesis already formulated. These will be tested as the week progresses.

Previously, schools did not have access to the pre-inspection commentary. From September 2001, however:

“in all inspections, registered inspectors should provide a copy of the pre-inspection commentary to the headteacher of the school, either shortly before or at the beginning of the inspection, and offer the headteacher an opportunity to discuss the hypotheses it contains.”

[Page 9, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

This change is welcome and the NUT hopes that it will help make inspection a more open process and increase the dialogue between the inspection team and the school.

REPORTING ON TEACHING QUALITY

The NUT has opposed consistently the OFSTED system of grading the quality of teaching. Such ‘high stakes’ judgements are based on snap-shots of evidence and a small number of lesson observations. These judgements take no account of all the external factors which influence the quality of lessons such as the composition and attitude of classes at any one time, the inevitable stress of scrutiny and even the state of each teacher’s health.

While retaining the system of grading teaching in this way, OFSTED have, for the first time, acknowledged flaws in the current system of reporting these grades. The latest advice to OFSTED inspectors includes the statements set out below.

“In all inspections, the percentage of lessons graded as very good or better, satisfactory or better, and unsatisfactory or worse should no longer be reported in the text under the quality of teaching table in the summary inspection report.

The table in Part C of the inspection report should be retained but in addition to giving percentages of teaching in each of the seven categories (excellent to very poor), it should give the actual numbers of lessons in each category.

When the total number of lessons observed during the inspection is substantially fewer than 100, a statement such as the following should be inserted after the table, as appropriate: ‘Care should be taken when interpreting these percentages as each lesson represents more than one (two, three, etc) percentage points.’”

[Page 10, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

The NUT will continue to call for the abolition of the current punitive system of inspection and the unfair OFSTED grading systems.

The NUT has raised concerns with OFSTED that its advice to inspectors may make it easier to identify individual teachers in the main body of the report. The advice states:

“The introduction to the standards table in the summary and the table of teaching judgements will now use year groups” and goes on to exemplify “and the headings used in reporting the quality of teaching would be Reception, Years 1-2 and Years 3-6”.

According to Elizabeth Passmore, the Director of School Inspections, it was intended that all Foundation Stage teachers i.e. both reception and nursery teachers would be grouped under the heading ‘Reception’. She added that inspectors would also need to take into account mixed aged classes in making decisions about which year groups to use as headings.

In relation to subject sections in secondary school inspection reports OFSTED states:

“All subject reports resulting from the inspection of secondary schools should now begin with an overall judgement about the quality of provision for the subject, followed by a brief list of key strengths and areas for improvement in the subject.”

INSPECTION OF THE NATIONAL LITERACY AND NUMERACY STRATEGIES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

At Key Stage 3

September 2001 sees the implementation of the first stage of the Government’s Key Stage 3 Strategy, involving the introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategies into all secondary schools.

In its guidance to inspectors, OFSTED states:

“Schools will have made their own decisions about how the strategy can best be implemented in their schools. It is important to recognise that schools' priorities will determine the nature and the phasing of the implementation and that there may well be little change in practice for some time. For some schools the implementation of the strategy will represent a significant departure from their previous approaches and new practice may take some time to embed. Some may limit what they do to Year 7 English and mathematics in the first instance. Other schools may have decided that they need to do little to change their practice.

In both the pilot and other schools it is likely that inspectors will see some evidence of teaching in English and mathematics using the recommended lesson structure…. This is not a structure which schools are expected to follow rigidly. The Frameworks emphasise that teachers should adapt the recommended lesson structure to suit the objectives and the length of the school lesson.”

[Appendix B, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

At Key Stages One and Two

OFSTED inspectors should judge the effectiveness of the literacy and numeracy teaching, rather than the degree of compliance with the frameworks. In its guidance to inspectors, OFSTED states:

“Schools should use the literacy hour flexibly and as a tool for improvement, not as a strait jacket. A rigid, mechanistic interpretation of the NLS model is unlikely to be as effective as acting on a realistic analysis of how it can be used most effectively to meet framework objectives for the children, within the context of the school’s current strengths and weaknesses”.

[Annex B, Update 35: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

The OFSTED guidance goes on to emphasise that the recommended ‘three part’ daily mathematics lesson, “is not a rigid template to be followed slavishly. The emphasis is placed on lessons having a beginning, a middle and an end with flexible timings and organisation to suit the situation and the mathematics being taught”. The OFSTED advice also states clearly that the, “NNS framework provides guidance and is not intended to be prescriptive”. [Annex C, Update 35: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

At the Foundation Stage

OFSTED, in their guidance to inspectors on inspecting literacy and numeracy in reception classes, states:

“Whenever, and however, either national framework is introduced, the job of the inspector is to evaluate whether the strategy is being used effectively with the children concerned and whether they are making the required progress. Evaluation must focus on quality and impact, whatever method is being used by the teacher”.

[Paragraph 1.19, Update 32: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2000]

REPORTING ON RECRUITMENT DIFFICULTIES

OFSTED has acknowledged the severe difficulties faced by some schools in terms of teacher supply. The latest advice to inspectors states:

“Registered inspectors need to take care when constructing the inspection report that both the school's difficulties and the work of the supply teachers are reported fairly..… Inspectors should take a sensible line when making judgements about the quality of teaching across the school where the temporary presence of short-term supply teachers may have distorted the typical picture of teaching in the school. Particular care is needed in cases where the teaching judgement prompts a consideration of special measures or serious weaknesses.”

[Page 11, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

CONTRIBUTORS AND BARRIERS TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

The NUT has argued that the current inspection system is over-reliant on snapshot judgements and insubstantial evidence. The following statements from the latest advice to OFSTED inspectors are helpful therefore.

“When considering improvement since the last inspection and its overall efficiency and effectiveness, inspectors should take account of, and report on, the impact of any particular initiatives, funding, external expertise and other catalysts that have had an impact on the school. Conversely, if the school’s capacity to improve is, or has been, inhibited by identifiable barriers, these too should be evaluated or reported”.

The advice identifies the:

“typical contributory factors to improvement as earmarked funding, continuous professional development and LEA or other external support.” The barriers to development “commonly stem from staffing difficulties and sometimes from external demands made on schools”.

The OFSTED advice goes on to state

“Inspectors must be alert to the fact that headteachers are concerned about the weight of bureaucracy on schools at the moment. Inspectors should report on the nature and extent of the bureaucratic demands on schools and indicate the most common sources of these demands. These must be explored with the headteacher and reported in the relevant section of the report. Inspectors need to take account of any other barriers to efficient development.”

[Pages 11 & 12, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

REDUCING BUREAUCRACY ASSOCIATED WITH INSPECTIONS

OFSTED is concerned not to be seen as adding to the paperwork demands on schools. In its latest advice to inspectors OFSTED states “It is usually unnecessary, for example, for the inspection team to have its own photocopy of the school's documents such as schemes of work and minutes of governors meetings, as they can be accessed as and when they are needed during the inspection.” [Page 25, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

Inspectors should:

• ask for only the bare minimum to be copied and should not ask schools to produce multiple copies of documents;
• obtain copies of previous inspection reports from the Internet, and should no longer ask schools to provide them; and
• make use of teachers' existing plans and must not ask teachers to prepare lesson plans specially written in a particular format for the inspection.

INSPECTING INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (ICT) IN SCHOOLS

From September 2001, OFSTED inspectors have been advised to emphasise the references to ICT in inspection reports. Registered inspectors have been reminded to:

· comment on the contribution of ICT to teaching and learning in each subject;

• consider the effectiveness of teachers' use of ICT;
• evaluate the balance between the teaching of the skills, knowledge and understanding of ICT (however delivered) and its application across subjects;
• seek the views of individual subject inspectors in coming to whole-school judgements, particularly in secondary schools.
• make sure that schools take reasonable steps to ensure that their pupils are protected from offensive materials on the Internet and from undesirable external contacts, for example through e-mail or non-educational chat rooms.

More helpfully, the OFSTED guidance also reminds inspectors that:

“The QCA schemes of work in Key Stages 1 to 3 are, as in other subjects, non-statutory and that any criticism of a school for not following these particular schemes is inappropriate.”

And that:

“The NOF scheme is voluntary and individual teachers may have chosen not to take up the offer for a variety of reasons, including moral and religious objections to the use of lottery money. Some headteachers may feel that staff do not need the NOF training or that they would prefer to use alternative providers. This is rightly the school's decision.

[A recent TTA report has identified] a number of problems with the implementation of some of the NOF training. Inspectors should be sensitive to the fact that schools may not have benefited sufficiently, even though they have participated.”

[Pages 16 – 18, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

OBSERVATION OF NEWLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

OFSTED has advised inspectors to be sensitive to the relative inexperience of a newly qualified teaching in coming to judgements about the quality of their teaching. The latest advice states:

“Clearly the watchword here is sensitivity. Newly qualified teachers have become used to receiving constructive feedback on their teaching during their training. Feedback from an inspector may have an impact on the NQT's induction programme and their professional development. Since NQTs may wish to make a written note of the main points in oral feedback, so that these can be shared with their induction tutor and considered in relation to their other identified targets, inspectors should make sure that any feedback given after the observation is focused on improvement and recognises the supportive context in which feedback is given.”

[Page 21, Update 36: OFSTED advice to inspectors 2001]

FURTHER OFSTED INFORMATION

The list of schools selected for inspection is now available on OFSTED’s website. To access this information on the website please refer to “Inspection List 2001-02” at www.ofsted.gov.uk/about/inspinfo/list.htm This list is updated fortnightly and major additions (such as a new inspection Window) will appear between 11 and 15 working days after schools have been notified.