This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 25 September 2013, At: 16:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

School Leadership &Management: Formerly SchoolOrganisationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

What Do Schools Do afterOFSTED School Inspections-orbefore?Janet Ouston , Brian Fidler & Peter EarleyPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Janet Ouston , Brian Fidler & Peter Earley (1997)What Do Schools Do after OFSTED School Inspections-or before?, SchoolLeadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 17:1, 95-104, DOI:10.1080/13632439770195

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632439770195

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

School Leadership & Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 95± 104, 1997

What Do Schools Do afterOFSTED School InspectionsÐ orbefore?JANET OUSTONManagement Development Centre, Institute of Education, Bedford Way, London

WC1H 0AL, UK

BRIAN FIDLERCentre for Education Management, University of Reading, Earley, Reading RG6 1HY,

UK

PETER EARLEYOxford Centre for Education Management, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley, Oxford

OX33 1HX, UK

ABSTRACT The results of research on the effects of OFSTED secondary school inspections in

England since 1994 are presented. The reactions of headteachers to the inspections and their

progress on the resulting school action plan are given. The results indicate considerable potential

for school inspections to contribute to the process of school improvement.

School Inspections by OFSTED

The Education Reform Act (1988) moved the focus of accountability of schools

decisively towards a market based on parental choice (Kogan, 1988). Judgements

about schools were to be made by parents on the basis of increasing amounts of

comparative quantitative data (Fidler, 1989). The professional scrutiny of schools by

Local Education Authority (LEA) inspectors and Her Majesty’ s Inspectorate (HMI)

was reduced, since both were reduced in numbers. Grant maintained schools were

only open to inspection by HMI.

The Education (Schools) Act 1992 instituted a regime of systematic inspections

of all state schools on a four yearly cycle. Inspections were to be carried out

according to a framework produced by a newly formed Of® ce for Standards in

Education (OFSTED). Inspectors are required to pass a registration assessment and

are contracted to carry out inspections after having a tender accepted by OFSTED

(Ouston et al., 1996a).

Inspections appear to have several functions:

1363-2434 /97/010095-10 $7.00 Ó 1997 Journals Oxford Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

96 J. Ouston et al.

(1) They increase the amount of information, both factual and judgmental,

availab le to parents to inform their choice of school. This can be viewed as

an indirect impact of inspection.

(2) They provide a summary professional judgement on the performance of a

school. This does not have any direct impact on schools except for those

deemed `in need of special measures’ , when a series of actions are triggered

which can result in a school closing in the most extreme case.

(3) They provide a spur to improvement in two main ways (Matthews & Smith,

1995).

· Schools are given a substantial period of notice before an inspection takes

place. Schools can be expected to undertake developmental and remedial

measures in this time with the intention of avoiding adverse comment in

the forthcoming inspection.

· After inspection, schools are required to produce an action plan which

addresses areas of weakness identi® ed in the inspection report. In 1996/7

schools will receive additional funding after submitting their action plan

(although this is only a targetted form of funding which would previously

have gone to all schools for staff development).

As originally envisaged, OFSTED inspections appeared to be a quality control

process. They were highly standardised and intended to provide comparable infor-

mation and judgements about schools. When the Improving School Management

Initiative group of the British Educational Management and Administration Society

(BEMAS) considered the potential of inspections for school improvement in 1992

it suggested that an approach based on quality assurance rather than quality control

would have been more valuable, but the group did recognise a key feature of

inspectionsÐ they would in¯ uence every state school over a 4 year period.

For this reason BEMAS supported an investigation of the developmental

impact of school inspections. The current results of this research are reported here.

A grant from the Nuf® eld Foundation will support further research in 1996 and

1997.

Research on OFSTED Inspections

OFSTED inspection has become part of the life of schools. Secondary school

inspection started in September 1993 and primary inspection a year later. There has

been a considerable interest from researchers in the impact of OFSTED on schools,

teachers, inspectors, parents and governors: many of these studies are reported in

Ouston et al. (1996b). There has been corresponding interest in how inspections and

other initiatives can play a part in school development (OFSTED, 1994, 1995a;

Earley et al., 1996).

Since 1994 we have undertaken four linked postal surveys of the impact of

inspection on the management of secondary schools. The ® rst survey focused on all

English secondary schools inspected in the autumn term 1993 (n 5 284) (Fidler

et al., 1994) and the second on those inspected a year later, in the autumn term 1994

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

What Do Schools Do after OFSTED? 97

TABLE I. Survey schedule

Follow-up

Survey Inspected First questionnaire questionnaire

1.1 and 1.2 Autumn 1993 June 1994 (1.1) June 1995 (1.2)

2.1 and 2.2 Autumn 1994 June 1995 (2.1) June 1996 (2.2)

(n 5 399) (Fidler et al., 1994). These surveys were undertaken two terms after the

inspectionÐ in the summer terms of 1994 and 1995Ð to ensure that the action

planning process was completed. The response to each survey was good (around

60%) and a similar range of schools responded. The third study followed up

the schools inspected in 1993 two years later (Ouston et al., 1996b) and the

fourth survey, undertaken in 1996, followed up those inspected in 1994. (Table I

summarises the survey schedule.) Each follow-up survey asked whether the

inspection still played a part in the decision making process. It also asked for

information about the progress made on implementing the inspectors’ recommenda-

tions. All questionnaires were addressed to the headteacher and nearly all were

completed by the head or, occasionally, by a deputy. The surveys should, therefore,

be seen as a senior management view of the inspection process and its consequences.

Schools Inspected in 1993 and 1994

In 1994 (survey 1.1) almost a quarter of schools had used an external consultant or

inspector to give guidance on the state of the school before inspection, whilst in

1995 (survey 2.1) this ® gure had risen to 38%. The value of preparation for school

development was reported to be much higher in 1995: 48% rated it highly compared

with 36% in 1994 and the mean response (on a ® ve point scale) went up from 2.9

to 3.3. A number of heads indicated that they had used the Framework to prepare

their schools for inspection and had obviously found it of value. The mean for the

value of the verbal feedback for school development was 2.93 (survey 2.1) compared

with 2.96 (survey 1.1), whilst the value of the ® nal report fell from 3.16 (survey 2.1)

to 3.01 (survey 1.1).

In 1995 (survey 2.1) we asked about the accuracy of the report in describing the

school and about the report’ s judgement of the four main areas of inspection. Most

respondents (two thirds) said that the report was fair, 12% said that the report was

too positive and 21% that it was too negative.

On a ® ve point scale we asked about the reaction of the head to the report. The

scale ran from dispirited to encouraged. The greatest number were encouraged

(69%), 21% were dispirited in some way and only 10% were neutral. In the

overwhelming number of cases this view was perceived to be shared by the staff

(92%).

When we asked about the effect of inspection on the speed of development, the

range of answers was striking. Four per cent said that development had stopped,

24% said that it had slowed, 34% said it had speeded up and the remaining 38% ,

the largest single group, said that it had been unaffected. Some respondents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

98 J. Ouston et al.

explained that the process of preparing for their inspection has prevented develop-

ments they wished to make, whilst others pointed out that preparing for inspection

had led them to make developments earlier than they might otherwise have done.

The reaction is both a function of the state of the school and how the school

perceived the inspection process.

In 1994 (survey 1.1), although the action plan was referred to as the governors’

action plan, almost half the respondents thought that the governors played little or

no part in its creation. In 1995 (survey 2.1) there was evidence of a little more

involvement of governors. Only 39% said the governors had made little or no

contribution and 18% compared with 14% said that governors had made a major

contribution. Nineteen per cent had used a consultant to help devise the action plan

and 12% had received a major input from their LEA; in both cases these are small

changes on 1994. Nineteen per cent expected to use a consultant to help implement

their action plan.

In 1995 (survey 2.1) 55% said that the action points were coincident with their

school development plan (SDP) (Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1991). The corresponding

® gure in 1994 (survey 1.1) was 29% . In 1994, 17% said that there were major

differences between the SDP and the post-OFSTED action plan. In 1995 (survey

2.1) this had fallen to 5%, suggesting that the inspection framework is having a

major in¯ uence on the priorities schools set themselves.

In the 1995 survey (survey 2.1) schools reported that the inspectors reported an

average of 6.8 `key issues for action’ . Not all of these were rated important by the

schools. The respondents were asked for their assessment of the numbers of action

points they considered to be `important’ : the mean number was 3.9; 2.9 action

points were regarded by schools as less than `important’ .

The Follow-up Studies

The third survey (survey 1.2) followed up the schools inspected in the autumn term

1993 almost 2 years later, in the summer term 1995. Every school in the `1993

group’ was asked if they would be willing to be followed up later. One hundred and

seventy schools replied (out of 284) and 120 agreed to be followed up. Of the 120,

87 replied to the follow-up. Again, this was a good response (70% ), but we must be

aware that this is only one third of the total population of schools inspected in the

autumn term 1993. Using evidence from respondents at different stages of these

linked studies, schools that replied to the follow-up survey had been, on average,

slightly more positive about the value of inspection 1 year earlier. This must be kept

in mind when interpreting the follow-up data.

The fourth survey (survey 2.2) followed up the schools inspected in the autumn

term 1994. Of these schools, 208 were willing to be followed up and 118 question-

naires had been returned by the end of August 1996.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

What Do Schools Do after OFSTED? 99

TABLE II. Key issues for action (survey 1.2 only)

Per cent of

Key issues for action schools

The corporate act of worship 65

Assessment 37

Monitoring and evaluation 30

Teaching and learning styles 29

School development planning 28

Differentiation 28

Academic achievement 23

Results

The follow-up questionnaires were distributed in the summer terms of 1995 and

1996. Schools were asked about their OFSTED inspection which had taken place

nearly 2 years earlier, in either the autumn term 1993 or 1994. The data from the

® rst follow-up study will be presented ® rst, with the second follow up data given in

parentheses.

In survey 1.2, 32% of schools (35% in survey 2.2) felt that the report was `very

positive about the school’ , 40% (43% ) that it was `generally positive’ , 24% (19% )

that it was `mixed’ and 3% (3%) that it was `mainly or totally negative ’ .

Thirty six per cent of schools (21% in survey 2.2) said that the inspection had

a considerable impact on the whole school and a further 39% (36%) that it had a

moderate impact. Three quarters (63%) saw the impact of inspection to have been

positive and one quarter (30% ) that it was mixed. Only 1% (3%) saw the impact as

negative. The greatest impact was in the schools who reported a `mixed’ or

`negative’ report. These data suggest a decline in the impact of inspection and in its

positive outcomes.

Forty eight per cent (35%) said that the inspection still played a direct part in

the discussions of the senior management team. This was unrelated to whether they

perceived the report itself to have been positive or negative. The main issues

reported were concerned with planning: the school development plan and the

OFSTED action plan. This was followed by issues concerned with academic

attainment and teaching and learning styles. (These data are not yet available for

survey 2.2.)

The number of `key issues for action’ reported in follow-up survey 1.2 ranged

from three to 10, with average of six. The most frequently mentioned are listed in

Table II.

Schools were asked to assess how much progress they had made on implement-

ing the `key issues for action’ . Most progress was reported in the following areas:

(i) responsibilities of the senior management team;

(ii) personal and social education and tutorial programmes;

(iii) health and safety;

(iv) special educational needs;

(v) linking the school development plan to the budget.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

100 J. Ouston et al.

Least progress was made in:

(i) the corporate act of worship and religious education teaching

(ii) accommodation

(iii) timetabling issues

(iv) academic attainment

(v) attendance and punctuality

(vi) developing pupil independence and initiative .

But even in these areas most schools reported that they had made some progress.

(These data are not yet availab le for survey 2.2.)

A key focus of the research has been how schools resolve the potential clash for

priorities between the inspectors’ `key issues for action’ and their own school

development plan. Fifty six per cent (69% in survey 2.2) reported that they had not

been diverted from their school development plan. Of these, three quarters (70% in

survey 2.2) said that their own plan and the inspectors’ recommendations had

overlapped almost completely, while others worked on the issues that overlapped

and left the remainder. In those schools where the inspection did divert them from

their SDP, most changed the SDP to incorporate the inspection report. In 34% of

these schools (3% in survey 2.2) the inspection recommendations took priority over

the schools’ own existing plans.

Finally schools were asked to report any other long-term positive or negative

outcomes of inspection. The positive outcomes included con® rmation that it was `a

good school’ . It also provided additional audit information and helped to sharpen

the school’ s development program me. Negative outcomes included those resulting

from:

(i) a lack of con® dence in the accuracy of inspectors’ judgements;

(ii) the stress and demoralisation inspection may create for staff at all levels;

(iii) the negative impact it may have on the community.

There was also concern in some schools that the report `only told them what they

knew already’ . Many schools commented that they would have valued a more

developmental approach, which included suggestions about how to implement the

inspectors’ recommendations. (These data are not yet available for survey 2.2.)

Changes between the Two Cohorts

Our ® rst group of schools (surveys 1.1 and 1.2) were the ® rst to be inspected under

the OFSTED inspection Framework. The second group (surveys 2.1 and 2.2) were

inspected at least 1 year after the start of OFSTED inspection. One must, of course,

be careful about over-interpreting apparent changes between two sets of dataÐ they

may be merely random ¯ uctuations which will inevitably occur from year to year.

Before drawing together the comparisons it is important to note that there is no

evidence that schools perceived any change in the overall pro® le of judgements made

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

What Do Schools Do after OFSTED? 101

by inspectors. Similar proportions of schools in each cohort saw their reports as

positive, mixed or negative.

If the changes we have recorded are supported by later research evidence, they

would suggest that the impact of inspection is changing from after the inspection to

before the inspection. There are several sources of evidence to support this con-

clusion. First, schools’ pre-inspection SDPs are now more likely to include the

inspectors’ `key issues for action’ . They appear to have taken account of the

inspection framework in writing their plans. Second, inspection is perceived as

having slightly less impact on schools than it did in its ® rst year and also to have

slightly less positive impact. This might be explained by the greater overlap between

the SDP and the inspectors’ key issues for action. Finally, schools are less likely to

be diverted from their existing development plan and less likely to agree that `the

action points took priority over the SDP’ . But the impact of OFSTED inspection on

schools may be just as great, or greater. Its in¯ uence may be more on writing the

SDP, rather than on what happens after the inspection. (This is not, of course, the

case for `failing’ schools where there are many consequences after inspection.)

These ® ndings may re¯ ect two broad issues: ® rst, schools are increasingly

in¯ uenced by the OFSTED framework in planning their SDP; second, they may be

developing a more mature and con® dent approach to inspection, coming to terms

with the inspection process. The inspection may be becoming considered as one

source of evidence which can be seen as part of an on-going review process rather

than a very high pro ® le, special event. This conclusion may be supported by the

writers’ impression that local newspaper interest in inspection has also declined.

Discussion of Research Questions

With the foregoing evidence we can review the three research questions with which

this paper began.

Secondary schools were, on the whole, positive about the developmental impact

of OFSTED inspections when headteachers were questioned some 6± 9 months

later. The three triggers for development appear to be:

(1) preparation for the inspection;

(2) information from a systematic evaluation of schools’ performance highlight-

ing issues for development;

(3) the requirement to produce an action plan after the inspection.

However, any developmental impact appears to be dependent on the following

factors.

(1) The headteacher’ s (and possibly others’ ) approach to inspection. Some

heads appeared to have negative views of inspection and inspectors before

their inspection. Rose (1995) has suggested that schools should take a

greater part in setting the agenda for their inspection.

(2) The conduct of the inspection. Some comments indicated that attitudes of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

102 J. Ouston et al.

TABLE III. Priority action points in surveys 1.2 and 2.2

Survey 1.2 Survey 2.2

1 The School Development Plan (SDP) already incorporated

the action points 1

2 The SDP was changed to incorporate the action points 2

3 Priorities in the school’ s SDP were ignored in favour of

OFSTED action points 6

4 The SDP was changed to incorporate action points 3

5 Only action points within the SDP were progressed 4

6 OFSTED action points were ignored. 5

It should be remembered that some action points concern issues which are not within the direct

control of a school, e.g. accommodation.

inspectors and the way inspections had been conducted had provoked

antipathy.

(3) The structure and framework of inspection. Inspectors appeared to put

more emphasis on reporting on classroom processes rather than manage-

ment of the school. Thus reports were more geared to providing infor-

mation about what needed to be improved in classrooms rather than

identifying and reporting on the managerial processes which were failing to

ensure quality teaching.

The second research question concerns how development was planned. The

alternatives set out in Table III are in decreasing frequency.

For the ® nal research question, a particularly noteworthy ® nding is that in many

schools development related to inspection was reported to be an active process two

years later. Not surprisingly, progress on action points had been uneven. Those

action points which were relative ly discrete, e.g. senior management team responsi-

bilities , were more speedily achieved than others, e.g. attendance, achievement.

Many of the action points were on-going and progress was only expected over a

number of years. On only a small number of action points was no progress planned.

General Discussion

The Framework for Inspections was ® rst published in 1992 and has undergone two

minor revisions. A major revision was introduced in the summer term, 1996

(OFSTED, 1995b). This pays much greater attention to a school’ s own develop-

ment plan and processes of internal evaluation. This marks an explicit shift from a

process which was standardised to report on schools for evaluation purposes to a

process which is more related to each school in ways which are intended to facilitate

its development. Action point priorities can be discussed with the headteacher,

although it is the registered inspector who ® nally decides the prioritisation of action

points in the inspection report.

Whilst it has been decided that there will be a second cycle of inspections, the

precise form this will take has been subject to consultation. The current pattern is

to be retained for schools causing concern, whilst a longer period between inspec-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

What Do Schools Do after OFSTED? 103

tions is to be used for schools with a good report in the ® rst round and no contrary

indications. Some evidence from other organisations suggests that complacency can

become apparent in a short length of time and so a longer time between inspections

might be undesirable.

There is abundant evidence, both anecdotally and in research ® ndings (Brim-

blecombe et al., 1996), of the stress and anxiety which inspections engender. This

was a factor given by some of our respondents as a negative aspect of inspection.

The relationship between performance and stress shows that increasing levels of

stress improve performance until a point is reached at which a further increase in

stress leads to a rapid deterioration in performance. Thus not all stress is deleterious.

Levels of stress of staff may vary with the state of the school being inspected, with

the way an inspection is carried out, with the natural propensities of individual

teachers and, ® nally, with the approach which senior school managers adopt to the

inspection process. Senior managers may feel under pressure themselves, but they

can either consciously or unconsciously pass this on to staff or they can seek to

reassure staff. These actions may be an important intervening factor as regards the

stress which teachers experience.

Finally, a very pressing issue is the cost of school inspections. This includes

both any payment to inspection teams and the cost of the time of senior managers

and others within schools. However, cost alone is only one part of the equation. The

other part is the value which results from the process. The evidence of develop-

mental impact which is reported here demonstrates value. This is not to say that this

may not be achievable at lower cost or higher value obtained from the present cost.

The real dif® culty concerns a precise assessment of the value of inspections.

Although the direct costs of inspection are large and exceed £100,000,000 per

annum, such sums need to be compared to the cost of operating schools, which is

some 300 times larger. If inspections promote improvement in the outcomes

resulting from £100,000,000, the crucial question is whether such improvement

could be achieved in any less expensive way.

REFERENCES

BRIMBLECOMBE, N., ORM STON, M. & SHAW , M. (1996) Teachers’ perceptions of inspection, in:

J. OUSTON, P. EARLEY & B. FIDLER (Eds) OFSTED Inspections: the early experience (London,

David Fulton).

EARLEY, P., FIDLER, B. & OUSTON, J. (Eds) (1996) Improvement through Inspection? Complementa ry

approaches to school development (London, David Fulton).

FIDLER, B. (1989) Background to the Education Reform Act, in: B. FIDLER & G. BOWLES (Eds)

Effective Local M anagement of Schools (Harlow, Longman).

FIDLER, B., OUSTON, J. & EARLEY, P. (1994) OFSTED inspections and their contribution to

school development, paper presented at the Annua l Conference of the British Educational

Research Association, Oxford University, September.

FIDLER, B., OUSTON, J. & EARLEY, P. (1995) School improvement through school inspection?,

paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Bath University, Septem-

ber.

HARGREAVES, D.H. & HOPKINS, D. (1991) The Empowered School: the management and practice of

development planning (London, Cassells).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

104 J. Ouston et al.

KOGAN, M. (1988) Education Accountability: an analytic overview , 2nd edn (London, Hutchinson).

MATTHEWS, P. & SMITH, G. (1995) OFSTED: inspecting schools and improvement through

inspection, Cambridge Journa l of Education, 25, pp. 23± 34.

OFSTED (1994) Improving Schools (London, HMSO).

OFSTED (1995a) Planning Improvement: schools’ post-inspection action plans (London, HMSO).

OFSTED (1995b) The OFSTED Framework: framework for the inspections of nursery, primary,

secondary and special schools (London, HMSO).

OUSTON, J., EARLEY, P. & FIDLER, B. (Eds) (1996a) OFSTED Inspections: the early experience

(London, David Fulton).

OUSTON, J., EARLEY, P. & FIDLER, B. (1996b) Improvement through inspection? A follow up of

secondary schools’ progress on implementing their OFSTED inspection `key issues for

action’ , paper presented at the BEMAS Research Conference, Cambridge University, March.

ROSE, J. (1995) OFSTED inspectionÐ who is it for?, Education Review, 9, pp. 63± 66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

16:

54 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013