THE RESPONSE FROM THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS TO THE OFSTED CONSULTATION ON THE COMMON INSPECTION FRAMEWORK FOR INSPECTING POST-16 NON-HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING INTRODUCTION

The NUT represents members working in school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. The NUT welcomes, therefore, the opportunity to respond to the above consultation document. In its original response to the Government’s White Paper ‘Learning to Succeed’, the NUT expressed its reservations about the extension of OFSTED’s involvement in the inspection of post-16 education. Those concerns related to the potential for the implementation of a model used in schools to a sector administered currently by the FEFC. Many of the concerns highlighted in this response, therefore, relate to the implementation of the framework rather than the framework itself. Overall, the NUT agrees with the purposes and principles of inspection as set out in the Common Inspection Framework. The NUT is concerned, however, about the method of its application. For those undergoing an inspection, interpretation of the OFSTED guidance by inspectors is crucial. OFSTED’s agreement that “the teacher associations would get a chance to see the guidance in draft form” is welcome, therefore. Recent events have reopened the debate about the value of the current model of Section 10 inspections in terms of raising standards. There is a large degree of consensus amongst all those involved in the education system that it is now time for a different approach. The NUT understands and welcomes the stated intention that the evaluation of quality will lie at the centre of post-16 inspections. While it recognises that all institutions reliant on public funds should be accountable, should not be based entirely on securing accountability. The current arrangements in schools have failed to engage teachers’ expertise, experience and commitment to the evaluative process. The NUT welcomes, therefore, early indications that OFSTED will review its inspection arrangements. GENERAL COMMENTS

The Role of Learning and Skills Councils The NUT welcomes moves by OFSTED to reassure teacher organisations about the application of the Common Inspection Framework. Nevertheless the outcomes of the inspection present unacceptably ‘high stakes’ for 1

providers. The NUT is particularly concerned about the powers afforded to Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) and the way in which inspection reports may be used by LSCs. When post-16 provision is being evaluated it is important that a fair consideration is given to all course programmes, even though some may prove more expensive than others. Post-16 provision should not be judged simply in terms of economic viability. Inspection outcomes should not be determined by ‘unit costs’ but by the quality of provision itself. In addition, any evaluation of post-16 provision should take into account all the factors that relate to social and economic disadvantage, not solely ‘free school meals’. Other factors that should be considered include: the prior attainment of students; student mobility; duration of study within the British education system; low income families; travel costs for students; students with special needs and the numbers of students with English as an additional language. The NUT is concerned that particularly in the case of sixth forms, local Learning and Skills Councils can make proposals relating to “closure where inadequate progress has been made in securing the necessary improvements”. The range of provision in any school sixth form may be constrained by factors outside its control. The quality of such provision will be subject to both Section 10 inspections and Post-16 inspections. The NUT believes that school sixth forms should be included within Section 10 inspections only and not subject to duplicate inspections. Post-16 area inspections should focus on provision currently under the responsibility of the FEFC. It will be the responsibility of the local LSC to consider the implications of both sets of publicly available reports within the context of continuing Local Authority and Foundation and Voluntary-Aided school responsibilities for funding their own post-16 provision.

The impact of the new arrangements for school sixth forms OFSTED has said that it is in the interests of all, that the inspection of school sixth forms and colleges are comparable. Yet many issues relating to the dovetailing of Section 10 inspections and Post-16 inspections remain unresolved. One key principle is that school sixth forms should not be ‘overinspected’. If, for example, a school sixth-form has been recently subject to an OFSTED inspection under the six-year inspection cycle the sixth-form should not then be inspected under the new arrangements within a four year cycle. Equally, teachers in school sixth forms may view it unfair if the rest of the school was subject to a ‘light-touch’ Short Section 10 inspection while they had a longer Post-16 inspection. Such issues of overlap need resolving in the context of the NUT’s comments outlined in paragraph 10. Such potential for overlap serve to strengthen the case for the Government to review the inspection and evaluation of schools rather than the “bolt-on” approach to the inspection of school sixth forms currently being proposed.

2

There is a potential also for over-duplication of documentation and bureaucratic overload arising from the requirements of post-16 institutions to provide evidence of quality improvement. OFSTED needs to issue supplementary guidance, which should be subject to further consultation, on maximum levels of documentation needed for post-16 inspections.

Grading Systems The NUT remains seriously concerned about OFSTED’s intentions with regard to the outcome of lesson observations. Under the current FEFC arrangements inspectors do not grade individual teachers or lecturers on the quality of teaching. They do, however, assess the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of provision (i.e. overall management, curriculum areas etc) and summarise their judgements in the report using a five-point scale. OFSTED’s letter that accompanies the consultation document, however, refers to the issue of grading scale for the Common Inspection Framework, and whether a 5 or 7-point scale should be used. It then goes onto suggest that the 7-point scale should be used for observations and the 5-point scale for published aggregate summary judgements. Yet at a recent meeting between OFSTED and the teacher associations Stephen Grix made the welcome statement that “individual teaching staff would not necessarily be graded because it would be highly unlikely that the same staff would be seen more than once, especially if they taught more than one subject.” It is clear, therefore, that the current grading system used by the FEFC should not be changed. If any grading system were to be used at all, the NUT would prefer the one currently used by the FEFC rather than the one used in Section 10 inspections. Using the 7-point scale for observations and the 5-point scale for published aggregate summary judgements seems calculated to be the worse of either option. To use both grading systems is likely to result in extreme confusing, not least in the way that 7-point grading for observations will be translated into 5-point aggregate grades. Inspection criteria Whilst acknowledging that retention rates and high levels of completion and achievement are important quality assurance criteria, these should not dominate the accountability process. There must be sensitivity to the diversity that exists in post-16 provision. Local and community provision, in both rural and urban areas, must be taken into account. A wider definition of achievement should also be incorporated into the inspection process that acknowledges the new post-16 curriculum developments. The inspection should also focus on what a particular local provider is offering to meet the educational needs of learners in that locality.

3

The NUT welcomes the increased emphasis within the framework on the context in which post-16 learning takes places. The circumstances and previous educational and social contexts from which learners are drawn, will have an enormous impact on the quality of their learning experience and the achievements they make as a result of those experiences. It is vital that any guidance for inspectors emphasises the importance of the teaching and learning context in terms of assessing student achievement and progress.

Equality of access and opportunity The NUT welcomes the final bullet point in the section on the Purposes and Principles of Inspection on education and social inclusion and promoting equality of access to education and training.

Conduct of Inspectors As the NUT stated in its previous response the Code of Conduct for inspectors of post-16 provision should be in line with the Code of Conduct set out for Section 10 Inspectors. In addition, therefore, to those listed in the consultation document, there should be added the following points:

• ensure that stress is minimised, in particular by making sure that no teacher or lecturer is inspected unnecessarily and by not asking for additional paperwork to be prepared specifically for the inspection;

• respect the confidentiality of information, particularly about any judgements made about individual teaching; and

• communicate with staff purposefully and productively and present your judgements clearly and frankly. The NUT has also argued that if the inspection process is to be successful in terms of raising quality and standards, then it is vital for inspectors to view the staff as a priority as well as the learners. A further bullet point should be inserted in the post-16 framework similar to the inspection framework for schools, which says that:

• all inspectors should act with the best interests and well-being of pupils and staff as priorities; The NUT is concerned about the experience and qualifications of inspectors who will be expected to inspect provision for both 16-19 year olds and adults. OFSTED must ensure that those inspectors working ‘across disciplines’ will receive adequate and appropriate training. The FEFC system of a “provider’s nominee” was one attempt at liaison between the institution being inspected and the inspection team. It is vital that the new inspection system and Common Framework is seen as fair and

4

credible by staff. The institutional nominee was one way, albeit it an imperfect one, of attempting to create that sense of credibility. It is important for OFSTED and the ALI to consider the retention of such a nominee. There should be a proper complaints and appeals procedure, whereby schools and colleges can make complaints to OFSTED about the nature of the inspection. The External Complaints Adjudicator should make the final determination of a complaint. The NUT has made clear its view, in separate documentation submitted to OFSTED, that the adjudicator should be appointed by Government, not OFSTED.

Role of Self-Assessment The NUT believes that each school or college’s approach to self-evaluation and its resulting development plan should provide the basis for external evaluation/inspection. School and college development plans should be informed by each provider’s own evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses and by the results of any external evaluation/inspection. The Common Inspection Framework should be used for the purposes of checking the effectiveness of each school or college’s self-evaluation arrangements.

CONCLUSION It is vital that the new inspection arrangements for post-16 provision are not based on a culture of blame. It is important that those aspects of post-16 provision that are not of high quality improve. It is equally important, however, that any such providers not meeting the required standards are given the opportunity and support of those improvements to take place.

5