ofsted keywords d1 - oxford university department … · web viewofsted keywords d1 (for sieg...

DRAFT – NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PERMISSION

OFSTED Keywords D1

(for SIEG meeting 29-29 March, 2011, Umeå)

John Clarke

Note: This is a slightly strange and rather long draft. It has two main parts: the first discusses a series of keywords and how they are given meaning in

the discourses of English schooling and Ofsted. The second part is a selection of documentary extracts and my comments, intended to allow

everyone to see some of the sources and my reflections on them.

Part 1: Keywords

Trying to think about keywords in relation to inspection is difficult. I begin by going back to Raymond Williams’ comments about how to approach the study of Keywords and then take up a series of words that appear central to the discourse of inspection in relation to Ofsted. These include: Improvement/progress, Accountability, Independence, Value for Money (VFM)/efficiency/effectiveness, and Users. I end with notes on some of the words that seem to be emerging in the new coalition government’s approach to schooling and inspection: proportionate, core purpose, and autonomy,

In Keywords, Raymond Williams argued against the search for the true or real meaning of words (or at least those words involved in the contested and conflicted field of Culture and Society). Instead he suggested a view of ‘historical semantics’ in which:

We find a history and complexity of meanings; conscious changes, or consciously different uses; innovations, obsolescence, specialization, extension, overlap, transfer; or changes which are masked by a nominal continuity so that words which seem to have been there for centuries, with continuous general meanings, have come in fact to express radically different or radically variable, yet sometimes hardly noticed, meanings and implications of meanings. (1988: 17).

Williams pursues the practical and political making of meanings:

‘The emphasis of my own analysis is deliberately social and historical … it is necessary to insist that the most active problems of meaning are always primarily embedded in actual social relationships, and that both the meanings and the relationships are typically diverse and variable, within the structures of particular social orders and the processes of social and historical change.’ (1988: 21-22).

This is a fine starting point, but Williams insists on the need to go further. Rather than seeing words and their meaning as merely reflecting the social and historical circumstances of their time, Williams anticaptes later

OFSTED keywords D1 1 8/5/23

discussions about the constitutive, productive and performative force of language (or discourse) by insisting that the changes, challenges and contestations that concern him take place within language:

This does not mean that the language simply reflects the processes of society and history. On the contrary, it is a central aim of the book to show that some important social and historical processes occur within language, in ways which indicate how integral the problems of meanings and of relationships really are. New kinds of relationship, but also new ways of seeing existing relationships, appear in language in a variety of ways… But…such changes are not always either simple or final. Earlier and later senses coexist, or become actual alternatives in which problems of contemporary belief and affiliation are contested. (1988: 22).

I doubt whether I can match the richness and complexity of Williams’ work, but it stands as a guide to how to approach the challenging of making sense of the articulation or assemblage of inspection in a specific time and place. The obvious and necessary starting point is the idea of Inspection itself. It draws on a long history in England, not just in schooling but in the variety of Inspectorates that were constructed during the Victorian reform and extension of the state apparatuses (Her Majesty’s Inspectorates of constabulary, prisons, schools, for example, date from this period). It is interesting that Ofsted continues to reference this history: most visibly and symbolically in the terminology of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (and Chief Inspector) within the new governmental and organisational assemblage/configuration that is Ofsted and alongside new practices of inspection. What is achieved by carrying forward the older terminology of HMIs into the new regime of an Office of Standards in Education? It is tempting to argue that there is an attempt to borrow or lay claim to a form of prestige, authority and legitimacy associated with the old HMI model (see ML’s paper on the history).

It would be interesting (although I have not tried to do it) to trace how the different chief officers of Ofsted have announced themselves: have they been the ‘head of Ofsted’ or ‘Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools’ (or in what context are the different identifications used)? The business of inspection continues to be executed by ‘inspectors’ – although these are recruited, trained and managed through new means – not least the contracting/partnership model which locates most of the inspectors outside Ofsted in its three ‘partner’ organisations.1

The continuity of the idea of inspection (understood as a mode of governmental surveillance of schools) conceals some radical discontinuities in its organisation and practice, but also in the field of relationships in which it is situated. Put crudely, what was a professional exercise conducted within the world of schooling and involved advising governments on the basis of professional judgement has become an evaluative practice, exercised over schools, producing public judgements and classifications for a set of assumed non-governmental as well as governmental audiences (teachers, parents, pupils, local authorities,

1 ‘Partnership’ is itself another keyword of contemporary governance, especially during the New Labour years.


employers, sponsors, local communities: the field of potential ‘stakeholders’ – itself another keyword and one used by Ofsted). What does inspection now mean in English schooling – and for whom?

One way of thinking about the shifting meaning is to look at Ofsted’s own framing of the word: for example, in formulations such as: ‘Improvement through inspection is one of our key objectives’ (Ofsted Raising Standards, Improving lives, p. 6). Ofsted performs inspection but it is framed by a series of objectives – in which ‘improvement’ is a central term. Ofsted documents feature (at least) two meanings of improvement. One is the rhetorical gesture towards social purpose (Raising standards, improving lives): this is a title but is not turned into any substantial discussion of what an improved life looks like or how it is to be assessed or evaluated beyond schooling. The more active sense of improvement is in relation to organisational performance. Here it forms part of a linked series of terms and phrases: raising standards, progress, and enhancing, supporting, and driving improvement. This is a consistently new managerialist vision of progress, in which organisations strive towards the goal of continuous improvement (itself a phrase borrowed from studies of 1970s and 1980s Japanese industrial practices such as quality circles or Total Quality Management). It rests on the idea that standards can be measurably specified and evaluated (see the Kirkpatrick and Martinez-Lucio collection, 1995).

In Ofsted discourse, improvement relates primarily to the raising of standards of educational performance (measurable and comparable), but it must also involve improving ‘value for money’ and the ‘efficiency and effectiveness’ of providers (as well as the aim to ‘reduce bureaucracy’). These are keywords in their own right, but it is important to note how they are articulated into the mission of improvement (see for example Ofsted inspects, p.1). But inspection is also, for Ofsted, a reflexive improvement process since it must also improve itself: seeking to ‘facilitate better inspection by removing duplication; align inspection activities… promote the principles of proportionality to ensure that resources are targeted where improvement is most needed; ensure that Ofsted’s work has even greater impact [and] enable Ofsted to report more effectively on key themes’ (Ofsted inspects: 1).

Finally, improvement is both to be evaluated in terms of achieved performance but also in terms of the school’s ‘capacity for improvement’. Ofsted suggests that:

The capacity to make further improvement is a judgement about the ability of a provider to continue to improve standards and make progress based on what it has accomplished so far, or to maintain exceptionally high standards. (Ofsted inspects: 6).

Questions of ‘capacity’ have become increasingly central to organisational evaluation since the 1990s (but I am not sure I can demonstrate this!). It is the term that articulates the concern with performance with the concern for future performance (or further improvement). In some respects, it seems to be the most critical part of evaluation – performance by itself is no longer enough: better performance is required. And it is (as is recognised by Ofsted) a judgement: not directly visible in


measurable/data-driven evidence; but involves an assessment of organisational culture and leadership (e.g., in terms of ‘ambition and prioritisation’?). However, Ofsted also warn that ‘capacity for improvement’ demands careful evaluation and should not be read off from superficial indications:

Inspectors should seek evidence of the impact of improvements implemented by the provider as shown in its track record and performance since the last visit by inspectors. Good intentions and an aspirational outlook, or a recent change in management or leadership following a period of ineffective leadership, do not in themselves provide sufficient proof of the capacity to achieve improvement. (Ofsted inspects: 6)

More to be thought about here in terms of how ‘capacity’ is understood and assessed, not least in terms of its links to the discourse of ‘leadership’ that came to prominence in public services during the last two decades (see, for example, O’Reilly and Reed, 2010, on ‘leaderism’).

The shifting assemblage of Inspection as Ofsted is also associated with a changing discourse of Accountability, linked – like many of the keywords – to the rise of the New Public Management (or new managerialism, depending on your choice of concept). In older models of Inspection in England, standards (the delivery of an ‘efficient’ education) were tied to three different versions of accountability, I think. The first was ‘Probity’ (the assessment of the proper use of public funds in the discharge of public purposes, embodied in the figures of the district auditor and town clerk); the second was ‘Professionalism’ (embodied in the HMI and other advisors); the third was ‘Accountability’ understood in a political register (the responsibility of elected representatives, either in local government or parliament). Following the NPM tidal wave of the 1980s, Accountability was reconfigured to focus on organisations, to become performance-centred, to produce an ‘arm’s length’ between political representatives and public service providers, and to become part of the ‘competitive-evaluative nexus’ (Clarke). That is, accountability became a managerial problem and possibility – and was associated with performance evaluation techniques and technologies. It certainly included versions of probity: the demand for public resources to be spent effectively (see below); it challenged the closures of professionalism; and changed the relationship between politics and service provision. It has been articulated internationally as part of the conception of ‘good governance’ in which accountability, transparency, participation and performance are combined (see Newman and Clarke, 2009: 100-102).2

Accountability, when translated into technologies and practices of inspection and audit, becomes closely entangled with notions of independence (as I have argued elsewhere, Clarke, 2005). This is an Ofsted keyword, recurrently asserted: ‘We prize our independence and we report impartially’ (Ofsted, 2009: 2). It is sometimes rephrased: ‘We will … report the outcomes of inspection and regulation without fear or favour’ (Ofsted Inspects: 5); or Inspectors will ‘evaluate objectively, be impartial

2 Accountability is a central theme in the 2010 White Paper on schooling: more on this at the end of Part 1).


and inspect without fear or favour’ (Ofsted Inspects: 21). This is a combative view of independence: the avoidance of ‘fear or favour’ is interesting, but it is not clear where the problems of fear or favour have arisen that demand this assertion. When or where were HMIs suspected of fear or favour? There are two issues about independence: the first concerns from what or whom is Ofsted independent? The implication here is that Ofsted must be independent of the schools they inspect. But to what extent is Ofsted independent of other sources of influence (if not fear or favour): the government; contemporary thinking or policy about schooling; international trends in practice? The second question concerns how this independence of judgement is to be secured: what sorts of practices ensure Ofsted’s independence?

I want to identify a series of devices that Ofsted identifies as the basis for ensuring the independence of inspection. Ofsted stresses the importance of ‘Consistent and coherent inspection and regulation methodologies’ (Ofsted inspects: 1). The work of inspection must ensure that inspectors:

- make clear and transparent judgements based on sound evidence- inspect and report with integrity- have clear success criteria, procedures and guidance (Ofsted

inspects: 3)

There is a code of conduct for Inspectors that requires inspectors to:

- evaluate objectively, be impartial and inspect without fear or favour- evaluate provision in line with frameworks, national standards or

requirements- base all evaluations on clear and robust evidence- have no connection with the provider which could undermine their

objectivity- report honestly and clearly, ensuring that judgements are fair and

reliable- (Ofsted inspects: 21)

This is a powerful cluster of virtues: objective, impartial, without fear or favour; clear and robust evidence; honesty; fair and reliable judgements…Finally, the practice of inspection itself brings together a variety of resources, techniques and qualities:

Inspection entails assessing a service against a published framework and criteria. It involves close observation by trained and experienced inspectors with knowledge of the sector concerned, informed by a range of data, and dialogue with staff and users of services. The output of inspection is normally the publication of judgements set out in a report. (Ofsted; Raising standards, improving lives: 3)

As indicated earlier the trinity of Value for Money, Efficiency and Effectiveness are central to the task of Inspection. I am more than a little impressed by the persistence or resilience of some of the earliest keywords of New Public Management (articulated in the UK in the early 1980s). These terms formed the core of the new managerialist challenge to the professional bureaucracies of public services and have been embodied in a variety of devices, practices and apparatuses: from audit,


through ‘market testing’ to New Labour’s ‘Best Value’. In its original incarnation, there were three E’s – in that economy was aligned alongside efficiency and effectiveness. Now it seems that VFM embraces the commitment to economy without it being stated explicitly. Ofsted offers its own definition of Value for Money that indicates just how closely the three terms are entwined:

In the context of inspection and regulation, value for money is either the efficiency and effectiveness with which a provider uses the available resources to meet the needs of its users or, where more information is available regarding the amount and allocation of resources, the efficiency and effectiveness with which the provider uses and manages the available resources to meet the needs of its users and achieve high-quality outcomes. (Ofsted inspects: 17)

What marks this articulation of Value for Money as slightly different from the original NPM version is the insertion of the conception of meeting ‘the needs of its users’ into the mix.

User seems to play an absolutely central role in organizing the discourse of Ofsted about inspection and the conception of the practice of inspection: references to users, their needs and the need to engage or consult them appear everywhere in Ofsted documents. For example: ‘Ofsted puts children and learners first’ (2009: 2); the principles of inspection and regulation ‘focus on the interests of service users – children, young people, parents and carers, adult learners and employers – and promote improvement in the services we inspect or regulate’ (Ofsted inspects: 3); while Ofsted has a:

Focus on the needs of users We will:

- take account of users’ views when we plan and carry out inspections

- draw on users’ views to inform our judgements and the outcomes of inspection

- encourage providers to focus on the needs of users. (Ofsted inspects: 3)

Inspectors are expected to ‘act in the best interests and well-being of service users’ (Ofsted inspects: 21), There are some interesting variations. Sometimes Ofsted talks about ‘children and learners’; at others there is an apparently more generic conception of ‘users’. But users are made of identifiable groups: ‘Users are defined as children and young people, parents and carers, adult learners and employers.’ (Ofsted inspects: 16). This is an interesting list – and appears to compound (without comment) rather different senses of ‘use’. Users may also be different from ‘stakeholders: ‘The judgement on value for money must be clear, transparent and understandable to users and stakeholders’ (Ofsted inspects: 16).

But ‘users’ are central to a reformed version of the NPM – not exactly the market-based model of consumers associated with the first generation version (though still bearing some of its traces, especially in relation to parents as school choosers). Rather they have needs, views, experiences


and voices and they must be represented in evaluation. They also need to be represented by evaluators/inspectors. Indeed, inspection gains legitimacy by representing user interests and articulating user voices - against providers who cannot be trusted to know and meet user needs 9this is the legacy of public choice theory, see O’Neill, 2002). Daniel Miller (2005) has suggested that in such discourse, inspectors/evaluators and similar agents act as ‘virtual consumers’.

I am interested in how such ‘users’ are brought to voice (questionnaires issued to parents; discussions with pupils or school meetings during inspection). But is this the same as social research (is there systematic sampling of pupils, for instance)? Or is it more like customer satisfaction surveying? I am also interested in how such voices come to play a part in the judgements of inspection: how are they ‘taken account of’’? What part do they play in written reports? Humphrey (2002; 2003) looking at Best Value audits argued that short quotations from users were often used to authenticate judgements and add texture or colour to reports. I want to think some more about this, in the context of what I have written elsewhere about ‘enrolling ordinary people’ in governmental strategies (Clarke, 2010).

In the last few paragraphs, I want to note some of the emerging keywords associated with the White Paper on schooling in 2010. Some of these are new; some involve a degree of apparent continuity (even if that conceals some reworking). So new words include:

‘proportionate’: as in ‘Ofsted will adopt a highly proportionate approach to inspection’ (para. 6.21) releasing outstanding schools from the burden of inspection but intensifying inspection for weaker/inadequate schools. It implies a process of increasing differentaion between schools. ‘Proportionate’ did exist in the Ofsted vocabulary (see Ofsted inspects, p.3), but it appears to be occupying a more significant place in the structuring of inspection.

‘autonomy’: as the model of ordering schooling. Schools have to achieve standards/performance levels, but how they achieve them will be a matter of choice for schools and professional judgement. ‘As long as schools provide a good education, we will not mandate specific approaches’ (para. 7.6). Under New Labour, this was sometimes referred to as ‘earned autonomy’ in other public services.

‘core purpose’: the White Paper proposes returning Ofsted’s focus to a limited set of educational concerns:

6.18 The current Ofsted framework inspects schools against 27 headings – many reflecting previous government initiatives. In place of this framework, Ofsted will consult on a new framework with a clear focus on just four things – pupil achievement, the quality of teaching, leadership and management, and the behaviour and safety of pupils. The new inspection framework will help to make sure that there is a better focus on the needs of all pupils, including the needs of pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or disabilities.6.19 This new framework will come into force in Autumn 2011, subject to legislation. It will allow inspectors to get back to spending


more of their time observing lessons, giving a more reliable assessment of the quality of education children are receiving.

Other terms persist, but are being reworked a little – accountability and independence, for example:

6.16 Along with making information and data about schools publicly available, the publication of inspection reports is an important part of making schools accountable to parents. Ofsted remains a highly respected part of the education system. The robust independent challenge of inspection can confirm school self evaluation, boost staff morale and stimulate further improvement.

Here accountability is specifically about parents; elsewhere it involves multiple audiences: tax-payers, parents, pupils and communities, for example (para 6.1). Both tax-payers and communities appear as new reference points for accountability. But accountability is primarily understood as being organised through the production and dissemination of data (as some of my colleagues have predicted!):

6.2 In creating a more autonomous school system, we will reduce duties, requirements and guidance on all schools, and make sure that every school can, over time, enjoy the freedoms that Academies currently have. We will dismantle the apparatus of central control and bureaucratic compliance. We will instead make direct accountability more meaningful, making much more information about schools available in standardised formats to enable parents and others to assess and compare their performance. And, through freeing up the system, we will increase parents’ ability to make meaningful choices about where to send their children to school.

Part 2: Ofsted sources and comments:1. Introducing Ofsted2. The purpose of inspection3. The business of inspection4. The language of inspection5. Changing Ofsted (the 2011 White Paper)

1. Introducing Ofsted

Ofsted: raising standards; improving lives

We seek to promote improvement in the services we inspect and regulate, and ensure that they focus on the interests of the children and young people, parents and carers, adult learners and employers who use them. We also encourage services to provide value for money.

Ofsted puts children and learners first.We prize our independence and we report impartially.

OFSTED Who we are and what we do (September 2009: 2)


3 comments:

PROGRESS: Ofsted language is entirely formed in the discourse of progress, or more specifically the new managerialist language of progress as continuous improvement in organizational performance (raising standards, improving, improvement) allied to the long legacy of the 1980s: ‘value for money’.

SPEAKING FOR THE CONSUMER: Ofsted positions itself as the representative of those who use services. Elsewhere I have written a lot about the transformation of citizens/publics into users-as-consumers (available on request). There is also some interesting work by Daniel Miller on New Labour’s ‘Best Value’ evaluation programme for local authorities that talks of auditors/inspectors as ‘virtual consumers’ (or perhaps better as proxy consumers?) speaking in the name of the consumer. Extra interest here is provided by the range of groups identified as users of the services – not just direct users, but also parents and carers and employers.

INDEPENDENCE: the foundational claim for the evaluative institutions: ‘we prize our independence and we report impartially’. To be explored further: from what or whom are they independent? In relation to who or what are they impartial? How is independence and impartiality materialised or embodied in practices and relationships?

2. The purpose of inspection:We assess children’s services in local areas, and inspect services forlooked after children, safeguarding and child protection. Aboutone in three people in England makes use of the services weinspect or regulate. This puts us in a position to make a differenceto the lives of many millions of our fellow citizens, of all ages. It is aprivilege and a great responsibility.

All our work is directed towards fulfilling our purposes: servingchildren and learners, encouraging services to improve, andsecuring value for money.Inspection entails assessing a service against a publishedframework and criteria. It involves close observation by trainedand experienced inspectors with knowledge of the sectorconcerned, informed by a range of data, and dialogue with staffand users of services. The output of inspection is normally thepublication of judgements set out in a report.

Ofsted Raising Standards, improving lives: 2, 3

Comments:

1. ‘make a difference’ appears as a key phrase (see below).

2. the three purposes are taken from the 2010 Strategic Plan, and are familiar from other documents (though children and learners is a slightly narrower specification than ‘users’ below). Improvement is a constant theme; as is Value for Money (VFM).


3. Interestingly inspection – observation and its grounding in knowledge and experience – takes precedence over data in this formulation.

Making a difference

Improvement through inspection is one of our key objectives. Wewant to ensure inspection influences providers, but also policythinking and policy making. Through our inspections, we gathera wealth of valuable and unique data and evidence in all areas ofcare and learning.This evidence is disseminated through a programme of surveyreports that look in depth at subjects and aspects of learning inschools and colleges and a wide range of other provision for learners,particularly where there are questions of national significance. Thissurvey programme is drawn up to influence policy and guidance, andto encourage improvement within settings by investigating subjects(such as English) and aspects (such as apprenticeships) relevant toour remit.In addition to the reports, we also hold conferences and events forproviders. We provide examples of good practice in learning andskills (identified through the inspection of post-16 provision) for adatabase on the Quality Improvement Agency’s Excellence Gateway(www.excellencegateway.org.uk). We highlight good practice inother areas through our publications, such as Twelve OutstandingSecondary Schools.HMCI’s Annual Report is published every November. It outlines ourfindings from across the full range of our remit, based on evidencefrom more than 45,000 inspections and regulatory visits during theyear. The report also draws extensively on our thematic inspectionsand surveys in different areas of our remit.The Ofsted website (www.ofsted.gov.uk) contains informationabout consultations and changes to inspection and regulation, bestpractice and our latest findings, as well as our newsletters (Ofstednews, an e-magazine for all the services we inspect and regulate,and talisman, a newspaper specifically for learners and employers).

Ofsted Raising Standards, improving lives: 6

Comment:This is interesting for detailing where and how Ofsted thinks it makes a difference – multiple practices and multiple audiences (beyond the immediate encounters of school inspections). It is noticeably English (national) in focus.

3. The business of inspection:

Consistent and coherent inspection and regulation methodologies aim to:

n ensure that inspection focuses on key issuesn improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the providern make it easier for users to understand the outcomesof inspection, helping to drive improvement


n facilitate better inspection by removing duplicationn align inspection activitiesn reduce bureaucracyn provide value for money to usersn promote the principles of proportionality to ensure that resources are targeted where improvement is most neededn ensure that Ofsted’s work has even greater impactn enable Ofsted to report more effectively on key themes.

This document sets out a framework that will inform all the inspection and regulation that Ofsted conducts. It provides the basis for the development of detailed frameworks and guidance for each remit. It provides consistency and coherence for inspection and regulation but allows the flexibility to tailor work to the needs of the users in particular remits. The framework will form the basis for liaison with other inspectorates.

Ofsted inspects: A framework for all Ofsted inspection and regulation (Ofsted, 2009: 1).

Comments:

1. An underpinning emphasis on consistent and coherent methodologies: is this a defensive responsive to earlier criticism about instabilities of practice and judgement; or does it announce the ‘scientific’ basis of independent and impartial judgement?

2. Note the complicated specification of ‘improvement’ that is to be produced by inspection: efficiency and effectiveness, value for money, bureaucracy reduction as well as improvement more generally. But also it is a reflexive improvement process so that Ofsted/inspection improves its own effectiveness, efficiency and impact.

Principles of inspection and regulation

The principles of inspection and regulation reflect our corporate values and ensure that our statutory duties are carried out efficiently and effectively. They focus on the interests of service users – children, young people, parents and carers, adult learners and employers – and promote improvement in the services we inspect or regulate. They also take full account of our policies on equality and diversity and our intention to embed sustainable development into every area of our work.All inspections carried out by us or on our behalf must comply with these principles.

Support and promote improvementWe will:n adjust the scale, focus and type of inspection andregulation to have the greatest impactn ensure inspection and regulation are high qualityand rigorousn use our enforcement powers appropriately.


Be proportionateWe will:n adjust the scale of inspection and regulation accordingto the outcomes of previous inspection reports and riskassessmentn minimise the risk to children, young people and adultsby taking proper account of assessments of safeguardson health and well-being and the needs of the mostvulnerablen deploy resources where improvement is most neededor where inspection can add most value.

Focus on the needs of usersWe will:n take account of users’ views when we planand carry out inspectionsn draw on users’ views to inform our judgementsand the outcomes of inspectionn encourage providers to focus on the needs of users.

Focus on the needs of providersWe will:n communicate with providers before, during and at theend of the inspectionn take account of providers’ self-evaluation.

Be transparent and consistentWe will:n make clear and transparent judgements based on soundevidencen inspect and report with integrityn have clear success criteria, procedures and guidancewhich are well understood by providers and users.

Be accountableWe will:n report the outcomes of inspection and regulationwithout fear or favourn consider whether inspection and regulation are reallynecessary to achieve the outcomes required

Ofsted Inspects: 3

Comments:

1. This has some of the tone of a New Labour era conception of Inspection: see the comments on equality, diversity, and sustainable development especially. Not clear what might happen to these in the more ‘core business’ focus on inspection announced in the Coalition White Paper. (See Ofsted inspects p.13 on definition and implementation of equality and diversity)

2. The long history of new managerialism/New Public Management


approaches has persisted in the consistent concerns with efficiency, effectiveness and value for money as criteria for how to conduct public business.

3. Note the persistent (rhetorical?) centrality of the needs and views of ‘users’.

4. Transparency and accountability are characteristically central themes: but perhaps underspecified in terms of clarity, integrity, and ‘without fear or favour’ – interestingly combative language but it is not clear where the fear or favour problem is located.

The Common Evaluation Schedule (pre-reform)

Section 1

Overall effectivenessn Capacity to improven Recommendations (and required actions)

Section 2: Meeting the needs of service users (term specific to remit)

Leadership and managementn Ambition and prioritisationn Value for moneyn Equality and diversityn Safeguardingn Evaluationn Partnershipsn User engagement

Quality of provision (as appropriate)n Teaching and the impact on learningn Curriculum/responsivenessn Assessmentn Care, guidance and support

Outcomes for children, young people and adultsn Be healthyn Stay safen Enjoy and achieven Make a positive contributionn Achieve economic well-being

Ofsted inspects: 5

The Capacity to Improve:

DefinitionThe capacity to make further improvement is a judgement about the ability of a provider to continue to improve standards and make progress


based on what it has accomplished so far, or to maintain exceptionally high standards.

Ofsted inspects: 6

Comments: I think that questions of ‘capacity’ became increasingly central to organisational evaluation in the 1990s and after, but I am not sure I can demonstrate this. It is the term that articulates the concern with performance with that of (further) improvement. In some respects, it seems to be the most critical part of the evaluation – performance by itself is no longer enough: better performance is required. And it is (as is recognised) a judgement: not the measurable/data-driven evidence; but an assessment of organisational culture and leadership (e.g., ‘ambition and prioritisation’?).

However:

Inspectors should seek evidence of the impact of improvements implemented by the provider as shown in its track record and performance since the last visit by inspectors. Good intentions and an aspirational outlook, or a recent change in management or leadership following a period of ineffective leadership, do not in themselves provide sufficient proof of the capacity to achieve improvement. The basis for making a judgement on capacity to improve will be through evaluating:

n the trend in improvement of the provider and whetherthis is consistent and improvements are sustainedn the extent to which improvements in outcomes are linkedto what a provider is actually doing and has plannedn the accuracy and rigour of self-evaluation1and how this secures continuous improvementn the effectiveness of the provider’s systems formanaging performance and tackling weaknessesn the rigour of the analysis of data on performance andprogress and how effectively this is used to improveperformancen the quality of leadership including managers whereappropriate and their track record in securingimprovementsn the extent to which governors or the appropriatebody, for example directors or owners, ask challengingquestions of senior managers to raise standardsn whether or not the management structure ofthe provider is appropriate with clear roles andresponsibilities to enable it to fulfil its purposeand key priorities2n the record in setting and meeting appropriate targetsthe sufficiency, adequacy and use of staff and resourcesto achieve improvement as recorded in the value formoney judgementn the quality and effectiveness of the use of informationsystems, where appropriaten the effectiveness and appropriateness of staffdevelopment and planning to meet future changes


n the commitment of staff, where there are staff, to bringabout sustainable improvements and their confidence inthe managers and leaders to provide effective leadershipn the effectiveness of user engagement by the provider.

Ofsted inspects: 7

Comments:

1. We begin to see the same words being recycled in different combinations: data/evidence; improvement; effective; appropriate; rigour, clarity, quality. So the tests of effectiveness involve the effective doing of things…2. There is a hint that improvement may happen unintentionally or as a result of something other than management decisions. Interesting – is the school not a closed and governable system then? And if not, how do inspectors distinguish intention/management and other causes?

Self evaluation:

Self-evaluation should be regarded as part of a continuous review and improvement process by the provider.Ofsted inspects: 11

User engagement

Engaging with users to inform inspectionand regulation

n In all remits there will be a reported judgementon the effectiveness of user engagement.n Eight basic strategies will be employed in inspections.

DefinitionUsers are defined as children and young people, parents and carers, adult learners and employers.

Operating principlesUsers must be provided with the opportunity to communicate directly or indirectly with Ofsted inspectors at some point during the inspection and regulation process. The following strategies will be used to engage with users:

Before inspectionsn Inspectors will invite users to provide their views priorto or at the start of an inspection or regulation event.Inspectors will ask providers to supply evidence of theiruser views and the action they have taken on them,through the self-evaluation evidence.n Appropriate information on complaints to Ofsted fromusers will be passed to the inspector at the beginningof an inspection and regulation event.


During inspectionsn Users will be engaged in face-to-face discussions byinspectors during the inspection whenever possible.n Those in charge of remits will explore methods ofalerting users to the inspection and regulation processwhen the inspection begins.n Inspectors will adopt appropriate strategies to engagewith users with learning difficulties and/or disabilities,or who have additional support needs, to ensureappropriate representation of their views.n Inspectors will actively seek access to additionalinformation on user views, for example in providerpublicity or other documentation.

After inspectionsn Inspectors will include the views of users in reports.

Ofsted inspects: 16.

Comments

1. User is a key word. It both organises and legitimates the activity of inspection: it is the populist form of governance talk.

2. The range of users specified is interesting because of the supplementation of ‘direct’ users with others: [parents/carers and employers (in what sense are employers users of schooling; how are their views solicited in inspection processes?).

3. It is strangely unspecific about how to access user views. There is a mix of passive (people should have the opportunity to express their views) with active approaches (seeking other sources of documentation). But – apart from those needing additional support – there is no socio-demography of users nor any conceptions of representation/sampling which feels particularly surprising in terms of the equality/diversity obligation to report on the progress of differentiated groups. Users appear strangely undifferentiated.

Note: keywords and visual representations. Under NL much more attention was paid to visual representations and design in government documents: not least the visual embodiment of ‘diversity’ in subject populations. Ofsted is part of this tendency: the website and documents are full of representations of a diverse population.

VALUE FOR MONEY

Value for moneyn In all remits there will be a single judgement on valuefor money.n The judgement will be made at one of two levelsdepending on the complexity of the remit and the


evidence available.

DefinitionIn the context of inspection and regulation, value for moneyis either the efficiency and effectiveness with which aprovider uses the available resources to meet the needs ofits users or, where more information is available regardingthe amount and allocation of resources, the efficiency andeffectiveness with which the provider uses and managesthe available resources to meet the needs of its users andachieve high-quality outcomes.

Principlesn Judgements on value for money must help bring aboutimprovement by identifying strengths and areas forimprovement regarding the effective and efficient useof resources.n Evaluation criteria for making the value for moneyjudgement must be appropriate to the remit and contextof the provider.n The value for money judgement should contribute tothe overall effectiveness judgement, but not be thedominant judgement.n Views of users should be taken into account whenevaluating value for money.n The judgement on value for money must be clear,transparent and understandable to users andstakeholders.

PracticeThere will be a value for money judgement at one of twolevels in all remits.Emphasis on inspection and regulation visits should not be on the details of financial planning but more on the extentto which decisions on spending and allocation and use ofresources bring about improvements and benefits for users.Level oneThis can be applied to any provider in any setting. The keyquestion is:n how efficiently and effectively does the provider use itsavailable resources to meet the needs of its users?

Level twoThis judgement includes all three aspects of the valuefor money definition: it assesses the interplay betweenefficiency (doing things in the right way; the outcomes);effectiveness (doing the right things); and economy (doingthings at the right price). The key question is:n how efficiently and effectively does the provider useand manage its available resources to meet the needsof its users and achieve high-quality outcomes?

Inspectors, in making a judgement on value for money,should take account of the following as appropriate to the context and


circumstances of the provider, the inspectionand the level of judgement that can be made:n the progress, standards or levels of developmentreached by the users, taking account of their startingpoints where this is possiblen the views of the users in relation to the suitability andavailability of resourcesn how effectively resources are managed and used for thedifferent activities to achieve the desired outcomesn the quality and availability of support for the usersn the number of users and how this affects outcomesn the quality of the provider’s environment, which mayalso include care for that environmentn how efficiently the provider uses its accommodationn the provider’s commitment to sustainability.

Additionally, in making a level two judgement of theprovider’s value for money, account may also be taken of:n the provider’s overall level of funding and its costs,where this information is availablen the average size of groups and how the organisation ofthese affects outcomesn the attendance of usersn how efficiently the provider uses its staffn financial planning, and controls and mechanisms toensure accountabilityn financial stability.

Ofsted inspects: 17-18

Comments:

1. This is a standard NPM definition on value for money: efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources (in the 1980s, there used to be three E’s: economy, efficiency and effectiveness). The distinctive voicing is provided by the concept of ‘user needs’ (which may or may not be interchangeable with ‘desired outcomes’?).

2. the NPM concept of stakeholders appears for the first time (who are they if not CYP; parents/carers, adult learners, employers?).

3. Note links back to ‘views of users’ to be taken into account; and ‘transparency’ (clarity) about judgements.

Code of conduct for inspectors:Inspectors must uphold the highest professional standardsin their work, and ensure that everyone they encounterduring inspections is treated fairly and with respect.The code of conduct requires inspectors to:n evaluate objectively, be impartial and inspect withoutfear or favourn evaluate provision in line with frameworks, nationalstandards or requirements


n base all evaluations on clear and robust evidencen have no connection with the provider which couldundermine their objectivityn report honestly and clearly, ensuring that judgementsare fair and reliablen carry out their work with integrity, treating all thosethey meet with courtesy, respect and sensitivityn endeavour to minimise the stress on those involved inthe inspectionn act in the best interests and well-being of service usersn maintain purposeful and productive dialogue with thosebeing inspected, and communicate judgements clearlyand franklyn respect the confidentiality of information, particularlyabout individuals and their workn respond appropriately to reasonable requestsn take prompt and appropriate action on any safeguardingor health and safety issues.

Ofsted inspects: 21

Comment: recurrence of keywords with increasing intensity: independence, impartiality, objectivity, clarity, fairness, respect… Note also best interests of service users.

4. The language of inspection

4.1 Primary School

This is a good school that is improving rapidly and already has some outstandingfeatures. Parents are pleased with it and particularly value the exceptionally highquality of the care, guidance and support provided for their children. Pupils reallyenjoy school. As one pupil said, 'We have to work hard but it's fun.' The school provides its pupils with a safe and friendly environment in which each one of them is valued.Pupils' personal development and well-being are outstanding. Behaviour is exceptionally good. Pupils are well prepared for their future lives and have an extremely good awareness of how to keep healthy and safe.Exceptionally good leadership and management are at the heart of the school's success. Self-evaluation is penetrating and highly effective. The headteacher provides an outstandingly clear educational direction and is extremely well supported by the whole staff team. All class teachers, as well as those who are senior managers, know that they are 'leaders of learning'. As a result, there is tremendous commitment to improving the school. Pupils know that their views count too. School council members say that, 'It is not just the teachers' views that count. It's the children's voices that matter too.'Teaching and the curriculum are good and result in pupils making good progress.Children get off to a strong start in the Reception Year because their needs are met


well. Throughout the school, achievement is good. Standards are above average atthe end of Year 6. All the different groups of pupils, including those with learningdifficulties and the very few at an early stage of learning English as an additionallanguage, achieve equally well.

Extracts from St Martin de Porres Report, 2006: 2

Comments:

1. Given the linguistic simplicity of Ofsted’s categories of judgement (Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory, Inadequate). The Report utilises an interesting series of qualifiers to convey shades of meaning (exceptionally, outstandingly, etc).

2. The report is simply organised around the key points of inspection, turned into prose rather than table form (though they are also in tables later)

2. Parents’ and especially Pupils’ voices appear early and significantly in the account. Humphreys (date?) comments on how evaluation reports are ‘peopled’ with telling quotations from the users/consumers.

3. The report moves from the outstanding to the good (is this a generic narrative form?)

4. The Report is accompanied by a letter to the pupils (to which I intend to return because of its intriguing mode of address. It thanks them for making her feel like a ‘special friend’, tells them off for not being at school on time..)

4.2 Secondary School:

Stantonbury Campus provides a satisfactory education for its students, who make satisfactory progress. In Key Stages 3 and 4 standards are broadly average. Achievement is satisfactory, and improving due to better tracking of students in Key Stage 3 and better examination preparation in Key Stage 4. Senior leaders acknowledge that the reorganisation of the campus into an 11-to-18 institution delayed the introduction of important strategies to improve examination results. As a result, a considerable number of students failed to achieve their predicted GCSE grades in 2007 and 2008. This underachievement is now being successfully addressed, and new systems are having a positive impact on standards attained, both in examination modules taken early and in new applied courses.

The quality of teaching is satisfactory, and inspectors agreed with the school that the proportion of good and outstanding lessons is increasing following better monitoring by faculty and hall leaders. Where teaching is less than good there is not always enough challenge for students or sufficient pace to lessons, with the result that students make slower progress than their peers in other classes. The campus has used its large number of teaching support assistants extremely well to ensure that


students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities make excellent progress. Assessment data is not yet used consistently by all teachers to ensure that students are learning as well as they can. Marking in books and files does not consistently help students to understand how to improve their work.

Extracts from Stantonbury Inspection Report, 2009

Comments:

Very different outcome (only satisfactory) and very different tone and style. Flatter and less qualified judgements; little summoning of popular voices (though student experiences are referred to later); and the letter to students has a strange mode of address in which the Inspector tells students about their experiences and their view:

The teaching you receive is satisfactory in Key Stages 3 and 4, and outstanding in the sixth form. You work best when tasks are challenging. You like the vocational opportunities and the range of subjects available for you to study. You enjoy the many extra-curricular activities, especially drama and sport. The campus does a good job in caring for, guiding and supporting you. You are given good help to prepare for work and adult life. You think the cultural mix of students in the campus is a very positive point.

5. Changing Ofsted (the White Paper 2011)

As the best education systems have shown, this power shift to the front line needs to be accompanied by a streamlined and effective accountability system. So we propose to re-focus Ofsted inspections on their original purpose – teaching and learning – and strengthen the performance measures we use to hold schools accountable. (White Paper ES: 4)

Reform Ofsted inspection, so that inspectors spend more time in the classroom and focus on key issues of educational effectiveness, rather than the long list of issues they are currently required to consider. (White Paper ES13)

Comments:1. accountability is central: see the recurrence of ‘original purpose’ (teaching and learning/educational effectiveness) – though this is not exactly what is said later.

2. strengthen ‘performance measures’ for accountability (more/improved/refined data streams?)

Focus Ofsted inspections more strongly on behaviour and safety, including bullying, as one of four key areas of inspection. (White Paper: 33)

Ofsted will focus more strongly on behaviour and safety


3.22 Our planned reforms to school inspections will free Ofsted to focus on schools’core educational purpose. This includes focusing more strongly on behaviour andsafety, which will be one of only four areas that inspectors consider in future.3.23 Inspectors will be given more time to look for evidence of how well pupils behave,by observing lessons and pupils’ conduct around the school. They will also expectschools to demonstrate that the standards of behaviour seen during theinspection are maintained at all times. Inspection will consider whether pupils areand feel safe in school. It is particularly important that pupils are protected andfeel safe from bullying in the playground and corridors as well as in the classroom.Inspectors will look for evidence of how much bullying there is in school and howwell it is dealt with. Evidence from pupils and parents will be considered alongsideevidence from teachers.3.24 If parents have concerns about behaviour, and feel that the school has not dealtwith them properly, they can ask Ofsted to carry out an inspection. In decidinghow to proceed, Ofsted will consider whether evidence suggests that standards ofbehaviour have dropped since the last inspection and whether they give cause forconcern. Ofsted may choose to contact the school for more information beforedeciding whether it needs to inspect the school, or it may carry out an inspectionimmediately if the problems are serious.3.25 Inspectors gather this information about parent, pupil and staff views ofbehaviour through surveys and discussions during an inspection. Ofsted willreview how this information is collected and used during inspections, includingthe best ways to make findings available to the schools and parents. Ofsted willalso undertake a survey of effective and ineffective practices which addressbullying. We will make this information available to all, along with case studiesfrom the most effective schools. (White Paper: 36)

Comments:

1. Behaviour and safety emerge as key themes for inspection (slightly different from ‘teaching and learning’). Parents can ask Ofsted…


5.7 In order to help all schools enjoy greater freedom to excel we will:●● Restore for all Academies the freedoms they originally had, while continuing toensure a level playing field on admissions, particularly in relation to childrenwith Special Educational Needs.●● Dramatically extend the Academies programme so that all schools can take onthe autonomy Academy status offers, using it to raise standards and narrowthe attainment gap.●● Ensure that the lowest performing schools, attaining poorly and in an Ofstedcategory or not improving, are considered for conversion to becomeAcademies to effect educational transformation.●● Support – not turn away – teachers, charities, parent groups and others whohave the vision and drive to open Free Schools in response to parentaldemand, especially in areas of deprivation where there is significantdissatisfaction with the choices available.●● Ensure that local authorities play a critical new role – as strengthenedchampions of choice, securing a wide range of education options for parentsand families, ensuring there are sufficient high-quality school places,coordinating fair admissions, promoting social justice by supportingvulnerable children and challenging schools which fail to improve. (White Paper: 52)

Comments:

1. autonomy and performance are to be linked, albeit in a somehat different way to NL’s view of ‘earned autonomy’. Here autonomy will be forced on everyone, perhaps especially the lowest performing as autonomy produces ‘educational transformation’.

2. Not much is said about Local authorities – but here they are identified as defenders, champions and critics. It will be interesting to see if – and how – these are translated into powers.

Accountability (pp 66-72)

6.1 We believe that public services will improve most when professionals feel free todo what they believe is right, and are properly accountable for the results. Schoolsshould evidently be accountable for achieving a minimum level of performancebecause tax-payers have a right to expect that their money will be used effectivelyto educate pupils and equip them to take their place in society. But in recent yearsschools have suffered from a compliance regime which drove them to meet abewildering array of centrally-imposed government targets. Schools


should,instead, be accountable to parents, pupils and communities for how well theyperform.6.2 In creating a more autonomous school system, we will reduce duties,requirements and guidance on all schools, and make sure that every school can,over time, enjoy the freedoms that Academies currently have. We will dismantlethe apparatus of central control and bureaucratic compliance. We will insteadmake direct accountability more meaningful, making much more informationabout schools available in standardised formats to enable parents and others toassess and compare their performance. And, through freeing up the system, wewill increase parents’ ability to make meaningful choices about where to sendtheir children to school.

6.3 In future:●● Parents, governors and the public will have access to much more informationabout every school and how it performs.●● Performance tables will set out our high expectations – every pupil shouldhave a broad education and a firm grip of the basics.●● We will use attainment and progress measures to create a more sophisticatedminimum expectation for all schools.●● Ofsted will refocus inspection on schools’ core educational purpose, and willrelease outstanding schools from all routine inspection.●● We will help governing bodies to benefit from the skills of their localcommunity in holding schools to account.

Comments:

1. accountable ‘for a minimum level of performance’, so does beyond that become a test of judgement by parents/consumers (implied by the performance data model)? Choice via comparable information (see paragraphs 6.4-6.7, and 6.10-6.15 on measures, tables and data).

2. accountable to tax-payers, parents, pupils and communities? Interesting specification of target groups, but not mechanisms.

6.8 Schools are best placed to address parents’ concerns – and in almost every case,teachers and head teachers can resolve concerns and issues quickly and easily.Sometimes parents and schools have issues that cannot be resolved locally, and


so we will make sure that parents have a route to complain in the most costeffective way, repealing recent legislation which introduced a role for the LocalGovernment Ombudsman.

Comment: I am not sure I understand this, beyond abolishing a current route for complaints.

6.16 Along with making information and data about schools publicly available, thepublication of inspection reports is an important part of making schoolsaccountable to parents. Ofsted remains a highly respected part of the educationsystem. The robust independent challenge of inspection can confirm school selfevaluation, boost staff morale and stimulate further improvement.6.17 However, in recent years, Ofsted has been required to focus too much oninspecting schools against government policies, at the expense of a proper focuson the core function of schools: teaching and learning. We will ask Ofsted toreturn to focusing its attention on the core of teaching and learning, observingmore lessons and taking a more proportionate approach – devoting more timeand attention to weaker schools and less to stronger.

Ofsted will consult on revised inspection arrangements6.18 The current Ofsted framework inspects schools against 27 headings – manyreflecting previous government initiatives. In place of this framework, Ofsted willconsult on a new framework with a clear focus on just four things – pupilachievement, the quality of teaching, leadership and management, and thebehaviour and safety of pupils. The new inspection framework will help to makesure that there is a better focus on the needs of all pupils, including the needs ofpupils with Special Educational Needs and/or disabilities.6.19 This new framework will come into force in Autumn 2011, subject to legislation. It will allow inspectors to get back to spending more of their time observing lessons, giving a more reliable assessment of the quality of education children are receiving. The new framework will not require schools to have completed a self evaluation form, allowing governing bodies and head teachers to choose forthemselves how to evaluate their work.6.20 Ofsted and the Department will work together to make sure that we are setting the same expectations of schools. These will reflect the starting point of pupils at the school and expected levels of progress during schooling.Ofsted will focus inspection where it is most needed


6.21 Ofsted will adopt a highly proportionate approach to inspection. Sinceoutstanding schools generally have robust systems in place to support theircontinued excellent performance, Ofsted will cease routine inspection of schoolsand sixth form colleges previously judged to be outstanding. Subject tolegislation, we will exempt primary schools, secondary schools and sixth form colleges which have been judged to be outstanding from routine inspection fromAutumn 2011 and re-inspect only if there is evidence of decline or wideningattainment gaps. We plan to extend the same principle to outstanding specialschools and PRUs. As risk assessment of these schools will be more complex, wewill work with Ofsted to identify suitable triggers which might indicate a need forre-inspection.6.22 The weaker the school, the more frequent the monitoring: schools judged to beinadequate will receive termly monitoring visits to assess improvement. In orderto help with this proportional approach, Ofsted will differentiate within the broad‘satisfactory’ category, between schools which are improving and have goodcapacity to improve further, and schools which are stuck. Schools which aresatisfactory but making little progress will be more likely to receive a monitoringvisit from Ofsted within the next year, and may be judged inadequate if they havenot improved.

Comments:

1. Ofsted praised: respected, robust independent challenge, etc. but to get back to core business (four topics).2. the differentiation of inspection (‘a proportionate approach’) makes the consequences of the evaluation/judgement even more significant. Data streams will be the trigger for reinstating inspections.

We will set a higher but fairer minimum standard for every school6.24 We want schools to be accountable first and foremost to parents and thecommunity: increased transparency and better inspection will make this a reality.But government action will be necessary in some cases. Where children are notbeing well-served by their school and there is not yet an alternative choice forparents, there is an urgent need to take action to improve the school. This will bethe case where a school is placed in an Ofsted category, and also where it


is verylow attaining. In each case, we will expect appropriate intervention and supportfor improvement.6.25 We will define a new minimum, or ‘floor’ standard, which we will expect allschools to meet. This standard will be higher than in the past, because we think itis right that minimum expectations should continue to rise. But it will also bemore carefully calibrated: some schools take in children who have very low levelsof prior attainment and do a very good job of helping these children to progress.So, the new floor standard will include an expected standard of both attainmentand progression.6.26 For secondary schools, a school will be below the floor if fewer than 35 per cent of pupils achieve the ‘basics’ standard of 5 A*-C grade GCSEs including English and mathematics, and fewer pupils make good progress between key stage two andkey stage four than the national average. For primary schools, a school will bebelow the floor if fewer than 60 per cent of pupils achieve the ‘basics’ standard oflevel four in both English and mathematics and fewer pupils than average makethe expected levels of progress between key stage one and key stage two. Infuture, we plan to make the floor at secondary level more demanding by includingscience; and because we expect the system to improve year on year, we plan tocontinue to raise the floor standard over time.6.27 Even with this fairer approach to a floor standard, schools below the floor will be in very different situations. Some may have suffered a recent decline, others maybe improving strongly. Some may be struggling to recruit teachers in a keydepartment, others may have much more serious problems. We will make surethat there is an appropriately differentiated approach to supporting schoolsbelow the floor to improve.

Comments:

1. higher standard (part of the wider discourse of progress/improvement)2. fairer standard (fair is a coalition keyword: you can find the talk I gave about it at: http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/media/big-cuts-big-society-talks-by-john-clarke-and-sukhwant-dhaliwal. But I couldn’t recommend it).3. a clear dynamic in the White Paper is that of differentiation: of schools, of performance, of inspection, of approaches to ‘supporting schools’.


http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/media/big-cuts-big-society-talks-by-john-clarke-and-sukhwant-dhaliwal

http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/media/big-cuts-big-society-talks-by-john-clarke-and-sukhwant-dhaliwal

7.6 We will expect schools to set their own improvement priorities. As long as schools provide a good education, we will not mandate specific approaches. Schools will determine what targets to set for themselves, choose what forms of externalsupport they want and determine how to evaluate themselves. We will make surethat they have access to appropriate data and information so that they canidentify other schools from which they might wish to learn, that there is a strongnetwork of highly effective schools they can draw on for more intensive support,and that schools can identify other useful forms of external support as necessary.

Comment: a recurrent feature of the White Paper is the distinction between performance and the means of achieving it. Schools have the obligation to provide a good education (which will itself be specified and judged by government) but schools can choose their own means of attaining the standards (except possibly in the area of phonics?).

We will publish ‘families of schools’ data for every part of the country7.10 Often schools find it more helpful to learn from schools which are contextuallysimilar to them, and it is often easier to learn from a school in a different authorityarea, not too far away. We will publish regional ‘families of schools’ data whichhelp schools to identify similar schools in their region which are performingdifferently and from which they can learn. This is based on an approach alreadytaken in some parts of the country: primary and secondary schools are groupedinto ‘families’ of 10 to 15 schools with similar intakes on the basis of priorattainment and socio-economic factors. Teachers and head teachers can use thedata to compare their performance with similar schools in the region and identifyschools from whom they can learn.

Comment: this appears to contradict the intention to abolish the contextual value added measure of performance (CVA) which is ‘morally wrong’:

6.12 We will put an end to the current ‘contextual value added’ (CVA) measure. Thismeasure attempts to quantify how well a school does with its pupil populationcompared to pupils with similar characteristics nationally. However, the measureis difficult for the public to understand, and recent research shows it to be a less


strong predictor of success than raw attainment measures. It also has the effect ofexpecting different levels of progress from different groups of pupils on the basisof their ethnic background, or family circumstances, which we think is wrong inprinciple.6.13 It is morally wrong to have an attainment measure which entrenches lowaspirations for children because of their background. For example, we do notthink it right to expect pupils eligible for free school meals to make less progressfrom the same starting point as pupils who are not eligible for free school meals(particularly once the introduction of the Pupil Premium ensures that schoolsreceive extra resources for pupils from poorer backgrounds). We should expectevery child to succeed and measure schools on how much value they add for allpupils, not rank them on the make-up of their intake.

Enough!

REFERENCES:

Clarke, J. (2005) ‘Producing Transparency? Evaluation and the governance of public services.’ In G. Drewry, C. Greve and T. Tanquerel (eds) Contracts, Performance Measurement and Accountability in the Public Sector. International Institute of Administrative Science Monograph 25, Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 41-56.

Clarke, John (2010). Enrolling ordinary people: governmental strategies and the avoidance of politics? Citizenship Studies, 14(6), pp. 637–650.

Jill C. Humphrey (2002) A scientific approach to politics? On the trail of the Audit Commission Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Volume 13, Issue 1, February 2002, Pages 39-62

- Joint Reviews: Retracing the Trajectory, Decoding the Terms Br J Soc Work (2002) 32 (4): 463-476.

- Joint Reviews: Judgement Day and Beyond Br J Soc Work (2003) 33 (6): 727-738.

- New Labour and the regulatory reform of social care Critical Social Policy February 2003 vol. 23 no. 1 5-24

Kirkpatrick,I. and Martinez-Lucio, M. (eds) (1995) The Politics of Quality in the Public Sector: the Management of Change. London: Thomson Learning.

Miller, D. (2005) ‘What is Best “Value’? Bureaucracy, Virtualism and Local


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236756%232002%23999869998%23290489%23FLP%23&_cdi=6756&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=552243f96b9971175e96244d2eaee807

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10452354

http://oro.open.ac.uk/26655/

http://oro.open.ac.uk/26655/

Governance.’ In P. Du Gay (ed.) The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (2009) Publics, Politics and Power. London, Sage Publications.

O’Neill, O. (2002) A Question of Trust (The BBC Reith Lectures 2002). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly D. and Reed, M. (2010) ‘Leaderism’: An Evolution of Managerialism in UK Public Service Reform, Public Administration, Vol 88 (4): 960–978.


ofsted keywords d1 - oxford university department … · web viewofsted keywords d1 (for sieg...

Documents