inspection framework consultation 24 Broughton Street Edinburgh EH1 3RH (UK) Tel; +44(0)131 478 7505 Fax; +44(0)131 478 7504 Email; info@george-street-research.co.uk VAT No: 502 484862 Registered Office: St Paul’s House Warwick Lane London EC4P 4BN (UK) No: 2364135 presentation structure Background and objectives Method and sample Overall views Proposal 1 – inspect where it matters Proposal 2 – inspect what really matters Proposal 3 – getting everyone involved Proposal 4 - increasing staff involvement Proposal 5 - clearer, more accessible reports Proposal 6 – shorter period of notice Some suggestions 2 background and objectives background • HMIe reviewing inspection process • Desire to: o align inspection process more with Curriculum for Excellence o increase focus on self evaluation o focus and target resources more efficiently • Public consultation underway • Research to support public consultation 4 objectives • To seek out the views of stakeholders on the possible changes identified in the consultation document • To identify any additional developments relating to the inspection and reporting model which would influence: o the effectiveness and impact of the inspection process o subsequent improvement activity o the reporting process 5 methodology & sample methodology • Quantitative o On-line survey – widely distributed to all audiences o Pupil survey – a representative sample of schools across Scotland o Qualitative o Focus groups – HTs, school staff, parents, pupils in 2 areas o 3 focus groups amongst lay inspectors o Depth interviews – organisational stakeholders & HTs, school staff, LA staff 7 quantitative sample - pupils School Year % No Gender % No P4 10 81 Boy 46 384 P5 15 127 Girl 53 448 P6 11 91 P7 9 76 S2 10 85 S3 15 122 S5 12 102 S6 19 157 8 quantitative sample - consultation • Total of 1,830 responses to the online consultation, of which 80% had experience of the inspection process Interest in education % No Experience of inspection % No Employed in school 64 1165 Teacher 56 822 Parent / carer 24 442 Parent 26 381 Employed in education outwith school 13 236 Headteacher 24 354 School parent body 8 152 Other 21 313 Other professional 5 95 Other 6 102 9 sample – qualitative Head teachers Teachers/support staff Livingston (focus groups) 9 primary, secondary special 6 primary, physics, pupil support, admin Inverurie (by telephone) 4 2 primary, 2 secondary 4 1 primary,1 secondary (physics), support Ayr (focus groups) 8 primary, secondary, special 21 Location Total Pupils Parents 10 S5 & S6 5 all parent council 11 primary, support, secondary 10 6 P6 & 4 P7 8 parent council & non parent council 21 20 13 Face to face and telephone interviews were conducted with 15 key stakeholders, 3 CLD managers and 3 local authority education staff; 3 focus groups were conducted amongst lay inspectors; 18 written responses were received from organisational stakeholders and 3 from interested individuals 10 overall views summary • Generally positive response to all proposals, from all audiences, though this is qualified in some instances • General perception that proposals will update the approach to inspections through better alignment with CfE and focus on self evaluation • Sensible way to target limited resource • Some concerns over how the risk assessment process will work • Mixed views on report length • Mixed views on notice period – ideal might be no notice 12 general concerns • Much more detail needed to reassure some respondents about how effective the approach will be in practice • Timing – a change too far right now? A bit early for some who are still embedding CfE? • Consistent application of the new supportive approach to inspection/professional dialogue is needed first • HMIe independence/role/relationship within new agency is currently unknown • Role of local authorities – consistency and resources are key concerns 15 Proposal 1 better use of information on schools and centres to make sure we inspect where it really matters sampling for the new inspection model (consultation) Key reasons for agreeing Strongly disagree 4% No opinion 12% Disagree 10% Agree 49% • • Strongly agree 25% Can focus on schools needing support = 20% More efficient use of HMIe time = 11% Information for HMIe to assess risk • • • • Use attainment / performance data = 17% LA information = 16% Evaluation / self-evaluation data = 12% Stakeholder views = 12% Alternative suggestions for sampling • • • Those employed in schools and outwith schools • in education are more positive than others • All schools to be regularly inspected = 24% Inspections are important check = 12% How to identify high risk schools = 11% Would like more schools to be inspected = 8% Don’t like any sampling method = 8% 17 where to inspect (pupils) All schools 67% 26% Schools where problems Selection different school types 24% Schools trying new things 24% 13% Schools have asked HMIE to come 11% Schools where good things happening 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 18 when and who to inspect (pupils) How often to inspect 4 years or less 16% Every 3 years 10% Once a year 47% • Whenever they hear there are problems = 26% • Whenever they hear something good has happened = 12% Classes to be inspected Every 2 years 27% • • • • • All of them = 50% Selection chosen by inspectors = 29% One from each subject = 23% One from each year = 22% Selection chosen by school = 12% 19 sampling and risk assessment (qualitative) • • • • principles almost universally endorsed details needed on approach, checks and balances approach relies on good self evaluation and authority QA concerns about: o schools falling through the net/ some schools never being inspected o LA input – consistency, need for a national assessment tool and resource implications o robustness of risk assessment o use of the ‘high risk’ terminology/schools being labelled as ‘failing’ 20 Proposal 2 continue to inspect what really matters changes to inspection and reporting in secondary schools (consultation) Strongly disagree 6% No opinion 16% Disagree 20% Strongly agree 13% Agree 44% Reasons for disagreeing • Subject areas are important / need balance between subject & CfE = 39% • CfE is too vague / too wide a perspective = 17% • Departments need to know how well they are doing = 12% • Parents need to know about individual subjects = 11% • Failures will slip through net = 10% • Focus on CfE will lead to deterioration in standards = 10% • CfE approach not suitable for secondary schools = 10% 23 what should inspectors look at in schools (1) (pupils) What pupils think about school 80% What is good about school 77% How well pupils are looked after and kept safe 76% What could be made better 76% How good are lessons 74% What school should do to get better 72% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 24 what should inspectors look at in schools (2) (pupils) How well people get on and work together 63% 56% How good pupils are at work What staff think about school 52% What parents and carers think of school 51% Health of everyone 49% What buildings are like 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 25 changes in secondary schools (qualitative) • Positively received in general - better alignment with CfE and better overview of whole school • Thematic reviews are endorsed by most too – should include cross curricular issues, such as learning & teaching, assessment, moderation etc. • Some feel it would be a mistake to lose all focus on subjects • CfE still bedding in, so some concern about focusing solely on this in immediate future • Literacy, numeracy and health and well being seen as a rather limited approach by some – creativity, approaches to teaching, leadership should also be covered 28 Proposal 3 greater emphasis on getting everyone involved involving parents (consultation) Strongly disagree No 4% opinion 6% Strongly agree 19% Disagree 23% Agree 48% Reasons for disagreeing with parental involvement (478) • Parental involvement already sufficient = 35% • Parents involved have axe to grind = 21% • Parents don’t understand education = 18% • Parents are ill informed = 15% • Parents only have personal viewpoint = 14% Least agreement from those employed in schools; highest levels of agreement from school parent body and parent/ carers 31 involving parents in focus group (consultation) Disagree 7% No opinion 3% Least agreement from those employed in schools Strongly agree 27% Agree 62% 32 involving parents in inspection meetings (consultation) No opinion 5% Least agreement from those employed in schools and the education sector Strongly agree 21% Disagree 15% Other parental involvement? • Survey / questionnaires = 9% • Representative sample of parents = 6% Agree 56% 33 how should inspectors find out about schools (pupils) 63% Inspector visiting class to watch lessons 61% Pupils talking to inspectors 46% Pupil questionnaire 40% Inspector looking at schoolwork 36% School staff talking to inspectors Parent questionnaire 22% School staff questionnaire 21% 17% Parents talking to inspectors 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 34 involving parents (qualitative) • Some parents (and some others) feel that parents already have enough involvement • Many would like to see more parents involved, rather than more involvement of the same parents • Asking parents to be involved in planning is expecting too much of them • The questionnaire is not the best way to get feedback and is not parent friendly (questions and language) • More informal, softer parent friendly approach is needed • Particularly in secondary schools, parents may not know very much • Focus should be how well school engages with parents in an ongoing way • Calls for inspection team open meetings with parents, at manageable times 35 Proposal 4 increasing staff involvement in inspection involving staff (consultation) No opinion 10% Strongly agree 25% Disagree 12% Agree 49% Reasons for disagreeing with staff involvement Current involvement is sufficient = 20% Inspection should be neutral /objective / involvement could compromise neutrality = 16% Should be HMIe / outside agencies responsibility / independent = 14% Too removed from schools /classrooms / day to day processes = 13% Will pressurise / intimidate other staff = 11% Strongest agreement from those employed in education outwith schools 39 involving staff in class visits (consultation) Disagree 10% Strongly agree 24% Least agreement from those employed in schools (teaching staff); most agreement from School Parent Body Agree 60% 40 involving staff in inspection team meetings (consultation) Strongly agree 32% Agree 63% Other involvement for staff and LA staff? Giving direction to school/supporting school staff = 6% More visits / classroom observation = 6% Contributing at feedback sessions = 5% 41 what inspectors should do in class (pupils) Move around class, join in & ask pupils about work 79% 59% Ask pupils questions 53% Sit & watch lessons Look at other work in classroom 48% Look at workbooks & jotters 45% Ask teacher questions 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 42 involving staff (qualitative) • Positive response from local authorities, others have some concerns • Clear role for chartered teachers • More detail needed about the purpose of this and how it would work • As part of an ongoing set of self evaluation, peer review or learning rounds this would be a positive activity • Capacity, cost, resource issues, esp. for LA staff & peers • Joint reports? • There should be an option for 1:1 confidential staff contact with inspectors, especially in smaller schools 43 Proposal 5 clearer, more accessible reports shorter reports (consultation) No Strongly opinion disagree 6% 4% Disagree 17% Strongly agree 23% Agree 46% Reasons for disagreeing Too short as it is = 36% Need full details/shorter reports won’t provide detail needed = 34% Need accurate reflection of school’s strengths/improvements/weaknesses = 13% Parents need full feedback = 11% Need clear guidelines/actions = 10% Highest levels of agreement from School Parent Body and those employed in school 47 sharing inspection findings with parents (consultation) Short report highlighting main points from inspection 53% 20% Letter highlighting main points from inspection Letter & access to RIF via parent council 17% 6% None of these 4% Access to RIF via meeting with parent council 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 48 how should inspectors let pupils know what they found out? (pupils) Inspectors tell pupils at assembly 52% 44% Separate report for pupils Pupils to see parental inspection report 41% Tell teachers to tell pupils 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 49 information that should be in report (pupils) When asked how much information should be in an inspection report •64% of pupils said ‘everything that the inspectors found out •44% said ‘just the main things. When asked to say most important thing in report, pupils focused on: •How good pupils are at work / how well pupils doing (16%) •Good / positive things about school / strengths / what school does well (12%) •How good lessons are / quality of teaching (12%) 50 report priorities (consultation) First thing to be looked for when reading findings from school inspection: • Strengths / areas of strengths / where school is doing well = 16% • Quality of teaching and learning = 11% • Educational achievement / attainment = 10% • Gradings / grades / scores = 10% • Areas for improvement / further development = 9% • Ethos / school values = 7% • Overall performance / evaluation = 7% • Quality of the learning experience / learning environment = 7% 51 shorter report (qualitative) • Mixed views on length • Some suggestions of a 1 page summary of key strengths and areas for improvement, some would like an action plan too • Others, particularly organisational stakeholders, think reports are already too short • Current reports seen as ‘bland’, ‘generic’, ‘interchangeable’ • Content and tone rather than length are the concern of most • No real quibbles about online publication, as long as school can provide a summary and hard copies if required • But more creative approaches needed for those with poorer or different language skills 52 Proposal 6 shorter period of notice notice of inspection 8% Unsure 20 working days / 4 weeks / 1 month 4% 16% 16% 15 working days / 3 weeks 17% 10 working days / 2 weeks 23% 21% 5 working days / 1 week < 5 working days 1% No notice / should just turn up Consultation Pupils 24% 31% 0% 5% 35% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 56 notice of inspection (qualitative) • Mixed views • Significant calls for no notice, from all audiences • But would need to think through pre-inspection info gathering /self evaluation • Need to tie in HMIe expectations with period of notice • Some suggest HMIe should be able to vary the period of notice 57 some suggestions some suggestions • A standardised approach to the information local authorities are required to collect, to facilitate robust sampling and, in particular, risk assessment • Close working with local authorities to develop and standardise the approach adopted for quality audits • Offers of training to LA staff involved in conducting quality audits? • Schools could be able to ask for an inspection and/or be involved in the risk assessment process • There could be an opportunity prior to the inspection for a school to suggest what inspectors might focus on 60 some suggestions • Chartered teachers should be involved in the collegial discussions that are part of the inspection process • Offering parents the opportunity to meet with inspectors preand post- inspection would clarify the process and set the context for the report • Parents evenings during inspections, so that parents can come and meet inspectors and give their views • Inspections should obtain feedback from wide range of stakeholders eg local employers 61 some suggestions • Pupils would all like some form of feedback and preferably directly from inspectors; suggestion that inspectors should attend assembly at the end of the inspection period to provide some feedback • Reports could be jointly published by HMIe and local authority • Wider access to RIF for professionals – professional development, good practice • Parent Council access to the RIF 62 For more information, contact George Street Research 0131 478 7505 24 Broughton Street Edinburgh EH1 3RH (UK) Tel; +44(0)131 478 7505 Fax; +44(0)131 478 7504 Email; info@george-street-research.co.uk VAT No: 502 484862 Registered Office: St Paul’s House Warwick Lane London EC4P 4BN (UK) No: 2364135