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