 |
The UK's Leading Education 'Do-Tank' |
Search |
|
The National Education Trust is an independent charitable foundation dedicated to the promotion and sharing of excellent practice and innovation in education. |
| COUNTERBLASTS ASSESSING ACCOUNTABILITY Beyond Ofsted Tony Ashmore & Malcolm Trobe Click here for a print version of this article. Foreword This paper arises out of a seminar jointly convened by the National Education Trust (NET) and the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL). It follows on from an earlier paper, Assessing Assessment1, which we subtitled Politics or Progress? to highlight the tensions faced by both policy makers and teachers as they strive for improved educational outcomes. Similar tensions exist between policy makers and institutions – the schools and colleges where learning takes place, because, as we said in our previous paper: Those charged with financing, directing and guiding the education system on behalf of the taxpayer need evidence of the effectiveness of the service provided. Tensions arise because whilst all value achievement, the requirement for evidence to satisfy a multitude of purposes compromises the value of that evidence. Worse still, the requirement for evidence at a particular time and in a particular form may inhibit achievement of that which is to be measured. In Assessing Accountability we examine the benefits and impact of current systems for inspecting and reporting upon the effectiveness of institutions, and propose ways in which the requirement for accountability (which we endorse) can also support improvement. Published as part of the Counterblast series, the paper seeks to challenge current orthodoxy, champion best practice and stimulate debate. The paper does not necessarily represent the views of either NET or ASCL, but does seek to shape our responses to current issues. Roy Blatchford, Director, National Education Trust John Dunford, General Secretary, Association of School and College Leaders Executive Summary When Ofsted was established in 1992, information about individual schools and colleges was scant and difficult to access. Neither families nor paymasters knew enough to make choices or judge value. Since then, greater openness and the ubiquitous web has revolutionised access to information; increased accountability, driven initially by inspection, has led to institutions having a greatly enhanced capacity for self evaluation. Whereas inspection may once have been an engine of improvement it needs to change if it is again to be fit for purpose. It has become an enforcer of government policy, reporting on that which can be readily measured rather than that what is most valued. There is a need to step back and question fundamentally what is it that schools and colleges are being asked to achieve? Currently inspection focuses on short term political priorities and data that are already in the public domain, often paying scant regard to the circumstances of the children, their families and local community. The 2006 Education and Inspections Act expanded the scope of Ofsted to include inspection and/or regulation of everything from childminders and adoption agencies to further education colleges, local authorities, and training in employment and in prisons. With 40,000 inspection and regulatory visits a year across such a wide range of services, its expertise has to be open to question. Add to this the appointment of a School Improvement Partner (SIP) to every school in the land; the cost of monitoring and inspection is now around £275m a year. In 2010, schools and colleges are better led, much more aware of their strengths, weaknesses and what they need to do to improve. The purpose of inspection should be reoriented towards quality assurance – validating, or otherwise, an institution's self evaluation and development plans. The inspection report should be a professional commentary that adds value to information that is already in the public domain. It would provide reassurance to government that an institution is providing value for money and provide evidence to the public on the effectiveness of government policies as they relate to teaching and learning. Ofsted should be replaced by an Inspectorate for Schools and Colleges, focused on teaching and learning, that
Compliance issues such as financial management, health and safety and the well-being of children should be confirmed through routine audit. Where schools are judged to require additional external support to succeed, School Improvement Partners can have a valuable role. Any institution can benefit from external advice, but if state schools are to become more independent, they should be able to choose when and from whom they seek that support. A Bit of History The Oxford Companion to British History2 credits Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, Secretary to the Committee of the Privy Council for Education as the founder of the English education system. In 1839, two inspectors (the first HMI) were appointed to supervise the spending of £30,000 for the education of the poor. Kay-Shuttleworth determined that the inspectors should be independent, being appointed through Order in Council. He emphasised the inspecting rather than the examining role of HMI stating that 'inspection is not intended as a means of exercising control, but of affording assistance'. This ideal was not to last and the Oxford Companion notes that '...with the introduction of the revised code (or 'payment by results') in 1862, whereby teachers' salaries depended on pupils' attainment in the three Rs, the role of HMI was seriously distorted; from this time they became hated and feared in elementary schools.' It was a further 30 years before payment by results came to an end. Whilst we may no longer have payment by results, HMI's successor, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) has moved substantially away from 'affording assistance' to 'exercising control' as an enforcer of government policy. Originally established in 1992, following reorganisation of the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (HMCI), Ofsted became the third pillar of a process of reform of publicly funded education that started in the middle of the previous decade – the establishment of a national curriculum divided into key stages, a national system of external assessment at the end of each key stage, and the inspection and grading of institutions. Initially there were hints of Kay-Shuttleworth's ideal. Although sometimes long and turgid, inspection reports gave praise where due, identified areas for improvement and suggested how this might be brought about. Where an institution was judged not to have the capacity to improve, it was "put into special measures". Until the advent of Ofsted, institutions lacked both a framework and external benchmarks against which to judge themselves, which resulted in many schools having no real evidence of how good (or otherwise) they were. As with national assessment, school inspection initially drove improvements in standards; particularly institutional leadership and the capacity of institutions to self evaluate and improve themselves. However, as is also the case for assessment of students, the benefits of current approaches to inspection are now increasingly outweighed by the perverse effects of the process. What's the Problem? In 1992, information about individual institutions was scant and difficult to access3. Neither families nor paymasters knew enough to make choices or judge value. More information, greater openness and the ubiquitous web have revolutionised access. Yet the frequency of inspection has increased since 1992 and the range of matters for which an institution is held accountable has burgeoned. The 2006 Education and Inspections Act expanded the scope of Ofsted to include inspection and/or regulation of everything from childminders and adoption agencies to further education colleges, local authorities, training in employment and in prisons. Responsible for 40,000 inspection and regulatory visits a year carried out by a raft of contractors across such a wide range of services, can Ofsted really claim that: 'The heart of inspection remains the exercise of independent professional judgement by highly knowledgeable inspectors.'4? Add to this the army of School Improvement Partners (SIPs) – one for every institution, monitoring and inspection has become a major industry, and at around £275m pa5 a significant financial drain on the public purse. The SIP is involved in accountability, but to the Local Authority, not Ofsted, and plays no part in the inspection process. Whereas inspection may once have been an engine of improvement it is no longer fit for purpose. It has become an enforcer of Government policy reporting on that which can be readily measured rather than that we most value. Inspection focuses on short term political priorities and data that are already in the public domain, often paying scant regard to the circumstances of the children, their families and local community. In 2008/9 19% of schools were judged to be outstanding and 4% judged inadequate, yet in the following first academic term in 2010 only 11% were deemed outstanding and the proportion judged inadequate had increased to 9%. Changes to inspection frameworks and criteria frustrate long term institutional development. It is difficult to see how such data inform national policy or give confidence in the rating of an individual school. Institutions need to be accountable – the education of our children is too important and the sums of money involved too large to do otherwise. We need to step back and ask some basic questions. Accountability to whom and for what? The accountability of institutions and their leaders is multiple and complex. They are accountable to:
Audit or Inspection? Particular financial management standards apply to institutions. Compliance is audited by Local Authorities. There are other aspects of day to day life in schools and colleges where compliance is essential and audit is the appropriate approach. Health and safety, employment and safeguarding matters should be dealt with in this way. Inspection should be a process requiring professional judgement and focus on learning. It should add value to the information about the institution that is already in the public domain, and to the view the school has of its own performance and progress. An Institution of Learning needs to be a Learning Institution A key aim of education is to develop independent learners – students who can assess their current knowledge and skills, plan for their future needs and embark upon a path to meet those needs. An institution similarly needs the capacity independently to assess its current state of development, the future needs of its students and staff, and map out the journey it must take. As Ofsted says: 'Self-evaluation is now a well-established activity in maintained schools, providing the basis for their planning for development and improvement.'6 Self-evaluation should be facilitated by a simplified national framework that focuses on the core purposes of teaching and learning. Inspection should be the process by which the school's self-evaluation and its development plan are validated (or otherwise) through discussion with the institution's Leadership Team and sampling the quality of teaching and learning. Self-evaluation necessarily involves engagement with families and the local community, so there is no need for inspectors to administer additional questionnaires to parents and carers. Inspection would address a few simple questions:
An inspection report would therefore complement other sources of information available about an institution. Whilst the self-evaluation, and the inspection report, might describe aspects of provision or planning as excellent, good, or in need of improvement, an overall grade could be misleading. Different stakeholders place different weightings on aspects of provision. The Inspectorate The current Ofsted remit is too broad and its current systems in respect of schools and colleges too driven by data that are already in the public domain. Inspection is viewed by the school or college, at best, as an ordeal to be survived and hopefully passed, rather than any kind of useful professional dialogue or process that supports improvement. A fresh approach is required which should apply to all state and independent schools. There are aspects of good practice in the approach taken by the current Independent Schools Inspectorate, including separation of compliance and professional judgement issues, and the involvement of current or recent school and college leaders to form inspection teams. An Inspectorate for Schools and Colleges should be established. The purpose of the Inspectorate would be to validate, and where necessary challenge, an institution's evaluation of the learning that takes place and its plans for improvement. The Inspectorate should be organised regionally to ensure understanding of local contexts. Inspection teams should be led by HMI supported by current or recent institution leaders. On average inspections should take place every five years, with frequency, length of inspection and composition of the team being proportionate to the institution's circumstances. The evidence gathered in these inspections should be used by the Inspectorate to publish reports on the effectiveness of government policy as it relates to teaching and learning. This evidence base would also provide information for the government in its future policy making. The measure of success of the new Inspectorate will be that it earns the trust and respect of both the institutions it inspects and the stakeholders it serves. This is not the case under the current arrangements. Where schools are judged to require additional external support to succeed, School Improvement Partners can have a valuable role. Any institution can benefit from external advice, but if state schools are to become more independent, they should be able to choose when and from whom they seek that support. Challenges for Policy Makers This 'Counterblast' concludes with a 'must consider' list for policy makers. In the context of the enhanced capacity of schools and colleges to self evaluate, and a significantly reduced education budget: 1. Simplify the current complex arrangements for accountability 2. Revise and renew Ofsted 3. Establish an Inspectorate for Schools and Colleges, focused on learning and teaching
Tony Ashmore is Policy Adviser to the National Education Trust Malcolm Trobe is Policy Director of the Association of School and College Leaders © National Education Trust 2010
2 - JOHN CANNON. "HMI." The Oxford Companion to British History. 2002. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O110-HMI.html
|
| Phone (44) (0)207 702 0707 |
Follow us on  |
Support NET
|
Join our mailing list |
Buy NET products online |
| Copyright © National Education Trust 2012 The National Education Trust asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this web site. Unless otherwise specified, all material on this website may be used for non-commercial purposes, on condition that the source is acknowledged. The National Education Trust is not responsible for the content of external websites. |
|||