NUTOFSTEDSCHOOL INSPECTION SURVEY REPORT
DECEMBER 2008
INTRODUCTION
- This survey was conducted in autumn 2008. It was sent to a random sample of 1000 nursery, primary, secondary and special school teachers, including head teachers, whose school had received an OFSTED inspection in the previous year, 224 questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 22.4 per cent.
- A number of questions which appeared in the 2008 survey were used previously in NUT surveys of members in 2004 and 2006. Comparisons between the current survey responses and previous findings are considered in Section C of this report.
- The comments used to illustrate responses to each of the questions are taken, in the main, from respondents’ comments at the end of the questionnaire. This section of the questionnaire was frequently used to clarify, expand upon or qualify responses given to specific survey questions. Whilst comments tended to be more critical than the rankings given in response to individual survey items, those used in this report are representative of respondents’ views overall.
SECTION A: VIEWS ON THE OFSTED INSPECTION SYSTEM
- Respondents were asked to give their opinions about the OFSTED inspection system in general, and about some of the specific potential changes to the inspection framework which OFSTED had proposed in summer 2008.
- Almost half of respondents felt that the current typical notice period of between two and five days was the most appropriate period of notice to give for school inspection, with 49 per cent supporting five days and a further 17 per cent favouring two days’ notice, which is used as the usual minimum period of notice at the moment. 19 per cent, however, felt that half a term’s notice would be more beneficial, with five per cent of respondents favouring a complete term’s notice. By contrast, only ten per cent supported OFSTED’s proposed “no notice” inspections from September 2009.
- A number of respondents commented that the rationale which had been given by OFSTED for the reduced inspection notice in the 2005 framework had not in all cases had the intended consequences.
Despite shorter inspections/pre-warning of visit (i.e. 48 hours) pressure and stress is still immense!
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
We found that due to OFSTED reducing the amount of notice given to the school and the amount of time their inspectors spent in school, the whole process was much less stressful.
(Primary Leadership Group)
We had been waiting for over 12 months for our inspection. Each ½ term the head would tell us “it will be this term!” the stress through that year was terrible. When it finally came and we were notified one week into the new autumn term it was a relief for everyone. We were so prepared we sailed through it because everything was in place and had been for at least a year.
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
Much better for them to come into school with 2 days notice. However, the build up was prolonged really as we “expected them”!
(Primary Leadership Group)
We spent 2 years on “red alert”. OFSTED is used as a big stick to ensure compliance to rather dubious operating systems.
(Special Head of Department/Key Stage)
I personally preferred the sudden death, short notice shortened inspection as it took some of the tension out of the run up, although it applied pressure of a kind over a long run up period.
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
- There was more support from respondents for OFSTED’s proposed six year inspection cycle, with 43 per cent suggesting that this should be the maximum period between school inspections. 39 per cent favoured the current three year inspection cycle for all schools, with an additional 14 per cent suggesting that it should be increased to eight years. Only two per cent thought inspections should be conducted every two years and no respondent agreed with the notion of annual inspection, although this could be introduced by OFSTED in September 2009 for some “satisfactory” schools.
- Most respondents (42 pre cent) thought that two days, which is the typical current amount of time inspectors spend in schools, was an appropriate period for an inspection visit, with a further 27 per cent suggesting that this should be increased to three days.
- In contrast, only 18 per cent supported one day inspection visits, which have been increasingly used for smaller primary and special schools and for certain high performing schools under OFSTED’s “light touch” inspection arrangements. In addition, 13 per cent would like to go back to the previous one week inspection period.
- Written comments suggested that respondents felt one day inspections, or two day inspections for large schools, must be by their very nature superficial as inspectors had little time to assess all that schools did and in some cases could result in a misleading judgement.
Inspection was so short that inspector had little knowledge of practice happening in school.
(Special Mainscale Teacher)
The inspector for Foundation Stage was only present for ½ day which was inadequate.
(Primary Head Teacher)
What it lacked in rigorous inspection it made up for in brevity.
(Secondary Subject Co-ordinator)
The inspection was a one day visit by 3 inspectors for a 1400 pupil comp. The inspection was basically a “paper” exercise necessarily in the time available.
(Secondary Subject Co-ordinator)
- The majority of respondents (70 per cent) rejected the focus on the core subjects only during inspections, which had been introduced in the 2005 inspection framework, with a further 19 per cent expressing mixed views on this issue. Only 11 per cent supported this aspect of inspection.
- Many respondents commented further on this issue in the space provided for the question on whether there were aspects of the school which had received too much attention during the inspection and also in the space provided for general comments at the end of the questionnaire.
English, maths and science shouldn’t be the only ones to be scrutinised or if they are, this should be reflected in the support they get throughout the year e.g. smaller class sizes.
(Special Mainscale Teacher)
Core subjects are important but don’t produce a rounded, well experienced child. If inspectors were focused on all subject areas, fewer subjects would be squeezed out of the curriculum.
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
- Closely allied to this aspect of the 2005 inspection framework was the lack of observation of foundation subject teaching. Respondents were divided about whether every teacher should receive a lesson observation during school inspection, which had been raised as a concern by OFSTED in its consultation on the 2009 framework. 41 per cent of respondents thought that this was unnecessary but 39 per cent believed every teacher should be observed. A further 20 per cent held mixed views on this issue.
- This divergence in views was apparent form the range of written comments respondents made on the subject of lesson observation.
It was less pressure for class teachers as there were fewer observations. (Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
I was told the reason for so many visits and lesson observations was because I was so good! Others had virtually no visits at all. Veryunbalanced.
(Special Subject Co-ordinator)
- The OFSTED consultation during summer 2008 also suggested that lesson observations could be increased in duration from the current five minutes which inspectors typically spent in classrooms. This proposal would appear to be supported by members, with 34 per cent believing that inspectors should observe a full lesson, 32 per cent suggesting atleast 20 minutes and a further26 per cent favouring half lesson observations by inspectors, by contrast, only eight per cent of respondents supported lesson observations lasting ten minutes and no respondents at all felt that the current five minute observations were appropriate.
- Written comments made it clear that respondents believed longer observations, rather than the current “snap shot” approach, would provide more accurate evidence on the quality of teaching and learning.
The experience left some staff members feeling demoralised and undervalued whilst others (not necessarily the “best”) were lifted beyond their ability based on a 20 min. observation. Caused undue stress and upset.
(Primary Head Teacher)
Teachers that do little teaching between inspections they put on a good show and papered over the cracks really well! So what incentive is this?
(Special Subject Co- ordinator)
Lesson judgements on “progress made” were formed from observing 15 – 20 minute snap shot of a 60 minute lesson. Colleagues viewed this as unfair/lacking rigour.
(Special Head of Department/Key Stage)
The inspector stayed for 20 minutes of an AS Level double period lasting 1 ½ hours, so the judgement was based on just over a sixth of the lesson. Although many more people are now supposed to provide the infrastructure for teaching, the teacher is still the one inspected, even though classroom assistants, SEN staff, administrative assistants etc many or may not be fulfilling their part in the scheme of work.
(Secondary mainscale teacher)
- Respondents’ views of the involvement of head teachers or other senior teachers in joint lesson observations with inspectors during school inspections, which was first introduced in 2005 and is likely to be expanded upon in the 2009 inspection framework, varied considerably, with 37 per cent opposed and 34 per cent in favour and an additional twenty nine per cent expressing mixed views.
- Very few respondents wrote about this aspect of the inspection arrangements, but of those who did, the comments were negative rather than positive.
I was observed in maths topic lesson for 20 mins. Joint observation by head and inspector. Head gave feedback therefore no chance to question/challenge feedback. … I submitted my review (of the lesson observed) to the head, but felt very dissatisfied that this was not to the inspector, where a discussion about his judgement would have been helpful.
(Special Mainscale Teacher)
- Almost two thirds of respondents (62 per cent) rejected OFSTED’s proposal that, from September 2009, inspection judgements would be linked to schools’ test or examination results, with a further 31 per cent having mixed views on this issue. Only seven per cent supported this idea.
- Many written comments suggested that respondents believed that inspectors were already doing this, which they felt was unfair and gave an inaccurate picture of the value added by their school overall, especially for schools serving deprived communities or with challenging pupils.
Working in a school that has a very high percentage of second language learners, we never achieve our floor targets, because of this we couldn’t be deemed anything more than satisfactory. This is very depressing as the children’s achievement is huge, even if their attainment isn’t. Also, satisfactory seems to be becoming a negative term and doesn’t seem to be good enough.
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
The report is very results orientated and overshadowed the other aspects of our school which are outstanding features such as brilliant behaviour, great atmosphere for learning.
(Secondary Mainscale Teacher)
Our recent inspection said that we were good or outstanding in all areas except the KS1 – KS2 progress made. We were therefore told we could only be graded as satisfactory overall – very disappointing! (Primary Leadership Group)
The whole system generates too much attention on statistics from SATs results. These comparisons are often unfair (so-called “like” schools).
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
Our recent OFSTED inspection was about test results!! The inspector was not interested in many things which the head teacher said … in other words, the fact that we give our children an excellent, broad and balanced education is of no importance to inspectors.
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
It relied on test data and statistical information so much so that the inspector had decides their judgement before they arrived, in my opinion. So very good/excellent teaching was deemed average in order to fit the “decided” narrative. It was, in my opinion, a sham. Schools of course should be held accountable – not in this way through by an organisation whose raison d’être if subordination and control of the teaching profession.
(Primary Deputy Head Teacher)
- As OFSTED has claimed consistently that its revisions to the school inspection framework have been driven by the need to reduce the workload and stress associated with them, respondents were asked if they felt that inspections generatedsignificant additional workload for them personally, for their head teacher and for other colleagues. Almost three quarters of respondents (73 per cent) reported that it had increased workload for them, with only 11 per cent feeling that this was not the case.
- Despite the high number of those who felt their personal workload increased, respondents felt that their colleagues were more affected by inspection than they were personally. 86 per cent reported that their head teacher incurred additional workload as a result of inspection and only five per cent disagreed with this and 77 per cent of respondents believed that additional workload was generated for other colleagues, with six per cent not in agreement.
- Respondents felt even more strongly that inspections generatedadditional pressure and stress. In total, 89 per cent believed that it caused them to suffer from stress personally, with only six per cent who did not believed this to be the case.
- Some of the written responses which picked up on this issue were disturbing, although others emphasised that stress had been reduced compared to previous inspection arrangements.
This last inspection was the least stressful of my career. The inspector was fair, professional and knowledgeable about small schools. The inspection was positive and a fair reflection of the school within its community. Inspections depend on the quality of their inspectors and thus was the case on this occasion. It has not been my experience on previous inspections, however.
(Primary Head Teacher)
We had our inspection in November and I can honestly say we didn’t recover from it for the whole academic year. Staff morale and enthusiasm was at a real low. For the majority of teachers at my school, this was our first inspection and we have all had such a bad and unfair first experience!
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
Personally the fear of being inspected almost caused anxiety attacks. I have been a teacher for 9 years but I began to question my ability and whether to give up before inspection. I have never felt like this before but the stress almost caused me to resign. Teachers shouldn’t be made to feel like goldfish. Good monitoring in schools should be enough.
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
I am aware of a need for some kind of inspection but this system does NOT work. It causes huge amounts of stress and left my school feeling like complete failures (which teachers actually feels that they are very good?) was very difficult to carry on teaching.
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
- The findings were even more decisive for views on respondents’ colleagues. 95 per cent felt that their head teacher suffered from stress and pressure as a result of inspections, with a further five per cent holding mixed views on this issue. In addition, 93 per cent of respondents felt this was true for other colleagues as well, with seven pre cent expressing mixed views.
- Respondents expressed serious concerns about the link between inspection and school improvement. Only 11 per cent believed that inspections were linked sufficiently to support for school improvement work. 46 per cent held mixed views on this and 43 per cent felt that the link was insufficient.
- The following comments provide a representative flavour of the views expressed by respondents.
The inspection process does not help to improve our school performance – it merely increases stress, workload and presents artificial image of school. Please let us return to helpful inspections/visits by informed LA advisors!
(Primary Subject Co-ordinator)
OFSTED told us nothing we hadn’t identified for ourselves.
(Primary Leadership Group)
What a waste of time and resources – we learnt nothing that we were unaware of as part of our rigorous self assessment process.
(Primary Head Teacher)
SECTION B: PERCEPTIONS OF THE LAST INSPECTION EXPERIENCED
- In terms of the OFSTED inspection all respondents had experienced in the previous academic year (2007 – 08), 67 per cent agreed that preparation for the inspection had createdsignificant additional workload for them personally, with 20 per cent feeling that this had not been the case.
- Respondents were also invited to give examples of the additional work they had undertaken because of inspection, the details of which are set out below.
Types of Additional Workload No. of Responses
More detailed/special format lesson plans40
Extra “paperwork”38
Displays of pupil work 35
Gathering information/data for inspectors30
Checking/updating policy documentation20
Extra meetings 20
Tidying/cleaning classroom 15
Working in school over the weekend 15
More detailed/special format marking12
Checking/updating SEF11
Checking/updating schemes of work 8