The National Union of Teachers (NUT) Welcomes the Opportunity to Respond to This Consultation

1

Introduction

1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation.

1. The NUT believes that it is time for a fundamental review of school inspection and wider school accountability systems. However, these consultation proposals do not offer that more fundamental review.

1. The NUT accepts that all publicly funded schools must be accountable to the communities that they serve and that the standard of education provided by schools should be central to any system of accountability. However, where such a process is seen either as punitive or as a driver of unnecessary workload that detracts from teaching and learning it will be counterproductive. We believe that point has been reached under current inspection arrangements and it is necessary for Ofsted to take stock and consider its rationale and remit in the longer term. No inspectorate that lacks the confidence of the profession it serves can expect to fulfil its purpose.

1. The NUT welcomes the publication of the Ofsted document Ofsted inspections – clarification for schoolsand recognises that the document has potential to correct some misconceptionsthat have led to unnecessary workload in many schools. The collaborative manner in which the document was produced,working with representatives of teachers and school leaders, should form a template of good practice in developing school inspection which has the support and confidence of teachers, school leaders, parents, learners, and the wider public.

1. The NUT welcomes, as HMCI does, the fact that more schools and colleges are considered to be providing a good or outstanding education. This is a tribute to the hard work of teachers and school leaders and the inspectorate needs to do more to recognise and celebrate this fact.

1. The NUT particularly welcomes the decision to discontinue the outsourcing of inspection. It is vital that HMI has the confidence of the profession it inspects, and significant measures are required to achieve that aim. An end to outsourcing will help to address real or perceived conflicts of interest for inspectors where it is linked to a genuine commitment to ensure a fair, just and equitable inspection process on the part of the inspectorate.

Proposal 1: A Common Inspection Framework

1. The NUT welcomes in principle moves to refine, streamline and achieve commonality between inspection arrangements for different providers. It is vital, however, to recognise the specific circumstances of different types of education settings. If a common inspection framework is to win the confidence of the profession, inspectorsmust be able to demonstrate that they have relevant personal experience, knowledge and expertise of the types of setting they inspect, especially given recent moves to separate judgements for settings with early years or sixth form provision.

1. Inspectors’ experience, knowledge and expertise is particularly important in the context of the move to inspect provision for two year olds: any inspector making judgements about this provision must have appropriate knowledge of child development and the early years foundation stage and direct expertise with the age group inspected when arriving at their judgements.

1. The consultation states that “inspection handbooks specific to each remit will underpin the new common inspection framework and set out in detail how each of the judgements will be made.” The NUT believes that it will be essential for separate consultation to occur once these handbooks are drafted so that the profession can be satisfied that appropriate consideration is being given to the distinct educational experience appropriate to each of these settings.

1. The NUT disagrees that a move towards a common inspection framework should be driven by the aim of ensuring that “parents, learners and others are able to compare settings more easily when making choices”. If the role of inspection is to support and encourage school improvement, the aim should not be to promote (an often imaginary) ‘choice’ agenda but to work with schools and colleges to ensure that every child, parent and community has access to the very best educational provision.

1. The NUT notes that in recent years, new frameworks have been introduced in January 2012, September 2012, September 2014, and that it is now proposed to introduce a new framework for September 2015. This constant change to the framework for inspection has been disruptive and unhelpful. NUT members report that they no longer know what it is that Ofsted is looking for when it inspects their school and that even within the parameters of any given framework, there is a lack of consistency among the inspectors themselves.

1. The NUT does consider that it is necessary – indeed urgent – to re-envisage both the framework for, and process of, inspection. It is vital, however, that such a remodelling is sustainable. To achieve that aim it is vital that teachers, school leaders, and other stakeholders are properly listened to. The NUT maintains that any inspection system that lacks the respect or confidence of the profession it is inspecting can never be successful.

1. The NUT welcomes the fact that Ofsted has opened up a discussion on the future of school and college inspection and hopes it can look forward to more detailed discussions than are possible through a consultation response in order to ensure we have the inspection system we need.

1. The NUT believes that any new framework for inspection should be based on the following priorities:

• It should be based on a professional dialogue between schools and inspectors;
• It should be based on a developmental and advisory model of inspection rather than a ‘punitive’ mechanism;
• It must be independent and perceived by the profession it inspects to be independent;
• Inspection should encourage sharing good practice but should not be an instrument for dictating practice; and
• Inspection must not be overly dictated by data analysis. Professional dialogue is necessary to contextualise data and ensure that the ‘human’ element of schools – both staff and pupils – are understood by inspectors.

1. The NUT agrees with the decision not to move towards routine ‘no-notice’ inspections. A harmonisation of notice periods across inspection remits is potentially helpful. It is vital, however, that Ofsted works with the teaching profession, with school leaders, local authorities, academy chains and others to ensure that an end can be brought to the serious pressure (and associated work related stress) caused by a perceived need to be in a constant state of ‘inspection readiness’.

1. The Clarification for schools document has been an important first step in seeking to address such issues, and it is vital that Ofsted continues to engage positively with the profession on issues related to workload, bureaucracy, stress and disruption related to inspection. As the Clarification for schools document implicitly recognises, perceived or unintended pressures related to inspection must be dealt with, as well as those which are concrete and material.

Scrutiny of the Curriculum

1. The NUT believes that it is correct that school inspection should consider the curriculum offer within a setting. The curriculum should be considered in a rounded way, however. A strong focus on maths and English at the expense of other curriculum areas would be inappropriate and the NUT is concerned that the continued focus on attainment data in school inspections is likely to continue to drive schools into an approach which narrows, rather than broadens, the curriculum offer for children and young people.

1. The NUT believes that curricula should be developed in a consultative and collaborative process. Good curricula are not imposed ‘top down’ but rather are rooted in the aims and values of school communities and the wider community.

1. The NUT believes fundamentally that all children and young people should have access to a broad, balanced and rounded curriculum. Such a curriculum should be available to every learner regardless of setting and whether or not that setting is required statutorily to follow the National Curriculum.

1. The whole curriculum should provide a foundation for children and young people as they develop as citizens and prepare for adult life in all its aspects and for lifelong learning. School and college curricula should be well designed, appropriately developed, founded on a set of strong aims and values, provide an entitlement for all learners, and be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of individual learners.

1. Further discussions are required on whether there should be a separate graded judgement on the quality of the curriculum offered, or whether it should continue to form part of the judgement on leadership and management. In particular, there needs to be further and more in depth discussion on the criteria by which curriculum quality should be judged, regardless of whether or not a separate graded judgement is adopted. We hope that further dialogue with the teaching profession can be initiated following this consultation in order to establish the best way of including curriculum provision within a new inspection framework.

Judgement on the Effectiveness of Leadership and Management

1. The NUT welcomes the fact that the leadership and management judgement includes the requirement to “actively promote equality and diversity”. However we have strong reservations over the inclusion of an expectation to promote “fundamental British values”. The NUT considers this to be a contentious and divisive phrase and it is arguable that there is no indisputable interpretation of what constitutes such values, or makes them distinctively ‘British’. Elsewhere the document refers to “preparation for life and work in Britain today, including in relation to personal development, behaviour and welfare.” The NUT believes this is a more appropriate phrase and should replace the reference to promoting fundamental British values in the leadership and management judgement.

1. Attention to the safeguarding and wellbeing of children and young people is clearly important. As part of the inspection process, however, closer attention should be paid also to provision for teachers and other school staff. This should include appropriate contracts, the provision of appropriate support including access to training and continuing professional development, and ensuring that teachers and staff are guaranteed an appropriate balance between their work and their life outside work.

1. The NUT does not believe that the requirement to “influence improvement in other local or national providers, and provision for children and families across their community and local economy, including by working directly with other providers and employers” is a realistic one in the current school landscape. We now have an education market place in many local areas with schools having to compete for pupils and their funding. Competition is not a driver of collaboration but the antithesis of it. As more schools become academies, school leaders have a diminishing opportunity to influence educational practice in other schools and work with other providers.

Judgement on the Quality of Teaching, Learning and Assessment

1. The NUT is concerned about the way that some of the proposed indicators to inform the judgement on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment are expressed.

1. It is of course important that teachers have high expectations for all children, a positive ethos, a secure understanding of the age group in which they teach and that they provide appropriate feedback, assess pupils and reportto parents. Expecting inspectors to make such judgements on staff whom they may have observed teaching for just a few minutes, however, is not realistic and undermines the Clarification for schools document that makes clear that inspectors should not be making judgements on individual teachers or individual lessons observed.

1. Where a school is employing unqualified teachers who may not meet the standards of teaching that can be expected of those with qualified teacher status, a judgement should be made on the effectiveness of leadership and management.

1. Ofsted may also wish to consider whether class size should be considered under this judgement.

Outcomes for Children and Learners

1. The NUT is concerned that the descriptions on which inspectors will make their judgements are far too narrow. The focus as described is solely on academic performance data and pupil progress in relation to age-related expectations and the attainment of qualifications. Whilst the NUT accepts that these are important, they are not the only indicator of the success of a school. Schools should be encouraged to provide a fully rounded education which meets the needs of all learners and recognises that they are individuals not a piece of numerical data. Children and young people are entitled to enjoy their education and schools must be encouraged to be innovative, creative and experimental in developing an education that best meets the needs of their particular pupils. There cannot be a one size fits all approach. Ofsted must be willing to consider a broader range of indicators when considering the outcomes for children and learners.

1. Proposal 2: Short inspections

1. The NUT believes that that there may be some benefits to shorter inspections. For example, shorter inspections could be less disruptive to institutions, teachers and learners. It is less clear why more frequent inspections might be necessary.

1. On the other hand NUT members have raised concern that short inspections do not enable the school and its staff to fully demonstrate the strengths of a school and the breadth of educational experience it offers.

1. Teachers feel strongly that decisions about the frequency and duration of school inspection must not be data led and, in particular, must not be overly led by peaks and troughs in data, such as data on pupil attainment. Following changes to GCSEs, particularly English language, and accountability measures surrounding them, many secondary schools will have experienced a seemingly strong decline in pupil attainment in results from summer 2014, for example. It does not, however, follow that the quality of teaching or the quality of the learning experience provided by the school has deteriorated relative to previous years. Smaller schools may be particularly subject to more pronounced fluctuations in pupil attainment data year on year.

1. Professional dialogue is vital to ensure that inspectors are able to consider data within an appropriate context. A particular example is the use of P scales with children and young people with SEN. The nature of working with some pupils means that it is necessary to contextualise numerical data on an individual level.

1. HMCI suggests that a period of five years between inspections for schools that were most recently judged as ‘good’ is too long. The NUT considers, however, that a period of up to five years is appropriate for monitoring school performance on the basis of pupil attainment data, particularly given the possibility of strong fluctuations in particular years for reasons outside a school’s control, including the examples set out above.

1. The NUT recognises that there may be highly unusual cases where, for example, there are well founded concerns about the welfare of children and young people, which could trigger an inspection. In such cases Ofsted already has the powers to conduct no-notice inspections. Furthermore, safeguarding concerns should be kept entirely separate from peaks and troughs in school and college performance data in individual years when inspection triggers are being considered.

1. HMCI states that he particularly wishes to ensure that school leaders have “identified key areas of concern and have the capability to address them”. The NUT believes that such an approach should naturally lead to a process of supported self evaluation, a long standing NUT policy. The NUT would add that school leaders, and all members of a school community, should also, as part of a self-evaluation process, be capable of recognising and building on strengths. A fault of school inspection under Ofsted is a focus on ‘areas of concern’ to the exclusion of areas of strength.

1. A more “professional dialogue about… key issues, strengths and weaknesses” relevant to individual circumstances would be welcomed if it occurs within the context of a move towards supported self-evaluation, and a concerted move away from inspection as a disruptive and punitive process. The NUT will welcome further discussions with the inspectorate about the development of such professional dialogue.

Proposal 3: Inspection of non-association independent schools

1. The NUT agrees that it is appropriate to bring all learning provision into an agreed common inspection framework which has the confidence of all relevant parties.

Additional proposals

Early years settings

1. The NUT agrees that it is appropriate to return to the issue of shortened inspections for early years settings co-located with and managed by schools. Different inspection arrangements for such early years settings, in the meantime, must not be disruptive to the rest of the school. Ideally in such circumstances, inspections of early years and primary school provision should be coterminous.

Inspection Methodology

1. A common inspection framework encompassing a range of settings should not be regarded as a ‘one size fits all’ model. Inspectors should have appropriate expertise and experience in order to make judgements which are appropriate to the ages and stage of development of children and young people and in relation to other judgements they may make, such as appropriate progress and expectations for children from backgrounds of social disadvantage, or in making judgements about provision for children and young people with disabilities or specific learning needs.

1. In a recent survey on teachers’ attitudes to the current school inspection framework[i] and the impact Ofsted has on working conditions and school improvement,90 per cent of NUT members reported that inspectionsgenerate additional pressure and stress for them. In addition, 90 per cent reported that they had considered leaving teaching in the last two years as a result of workload, much of it driven by the Ofsted regime or schools’ expectations around it.

1. Ofsted should be mindful of the dangers in creating a system which is so demanding and so high stakes that it drives teachers out of the profession and results in a teacher shortage.

1. These issues need to be carefully considered in any development of the inspection framework. There is much to be gained from working closely with representatives of teachers and school leaders at every stage of development.The time is right to develop a new framework in conjunction with the teaching profession which is based on trust and respect of teachers and school leaders, which is supportive and developmental, and which provides a significant role for school self evaluation.

S:\OFSTED\2014\Ofsted Reform 2014\Better Inspection for All Consultation.October2014\NUT response - better inspection for all - Nov 2014.doc