November 2008

Media information: EMBARGO: 00:01 AM Sunday 16th November 2008

Substandard inspections failing parents

Ofsted squandering tens of millions a year on pointless school inspections

On Wednesday Ofsted will report on the state of the nation's schools in its Annual Report. However new evidence from independent think-tank Civitas casts serious doubt over the reliability of Ofsted's verdicts on schools.

• Validity of Ofsted's school inspection judgements heavily undermined by its failure to properly investigate schools


• Inspection judgements largely determined before inspectors have even entered schools and based on information which even Ofsted admits is unsound.

Inspecting the Inspectorate, a ten-author report which includes a foreword by the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee chairman, Barry Sheerman and contributions from a practising inspector, two head teachers, a parent and a former chief inspector, arouses a crisis of confidence in Ofsted's competence to safeguard parents and children from poor quality schools.

Hidden costs of 'cheap' inspection

Since the introduction of the current 'short, sharp' 'section 5' school inspections in 2005, Ofsted has reduced the time inspectors spend in schools, the number of inspectors per inspection and the experience and training inspectors require.

Underlying these cuts is Ofsted's bid to reduce its annual budget by 30 per cent from 2003/04 figures. According to the inspectorate lower cost inspection is providing greater value for money. In reality, however, the remaining millions are being wasted on inspections often superficial to the point of worthlessness.

Reliance on unreliable data

To judge school quality Ofsted now heavily depends on a single source of highly questionable evidence: test and exam performance. The shortened and short-staffed nature of today's inspections has in turn left inspectors unable to properly investigate whether this performance data is reliable. In the words of contributor to the report and inspector Sarah Drake who has led over 60 section 5 Ofsted inspections:

'... [T]here is a real time shortage for inspectors within the new inspection regime'. [p24]

Ofsted denies its reliance on exam scores, yet research in Times Educational Supplement reporter Warwick Mansell's contribution to the report, reveals the almost inextricable relation between exam results and inspection judgements:

'Ofsted visited 6,331 primaries in 2006-07, the last academic year for which results are available. Of these, 98 per cent had the same inspection verdict overall as they had for 'achievement and standards'. This latter judgement is based on pupils' test scores… Among secondary schools, the apparent link between exam results and the overall verdict was almost as strong, with 96 per cent gaining the same summing-up judgement as they were awarded on 'achievement and standards'.' [p.58]

Consequently Barry Sheerman writes in his foreword:

'…[A]s inspection reports and results become increasingly interchangeable, many educational practitioners feel that the inspectors' minds are made up long before they observe the quality of teaching or the atmosphere within a school'. [p.xiv]

There are several fundamental flaws in this inspection approach.

Millions misspent

Firstly, it's a huge waste of money. If Ofsted doesn't look much further than performance data to determine school quality, there is little point in them going into schools at all. As one head is quoted in the report as saying, inspectors might as well '…short-cut the inspection process by looking at the [test/exam] data and then either writing to schools to tell them that they [are] outstanding, or starting proceedings to close them down'. [p.56]

'Parents are relying on Ofsted for a thorough insight into schools, not a rehash of the test and exam results which they can see for themselves,' commented Anastasia de Waal, Head of Family and Education at Civitas and editor of the report.

Inadequate investigation

Secondly, performance data covers only part of the curriculum. Results only tell inspectors about the subjects tested. In primary schools this is only English, maths and science.

As inspector Sarah Drake notes: 'Because the section 5 regime is not a 'subject standards' inspection it means that other subjects can slip unnoticed.' [p.21]

Non-academic areas of a school are neglected even more. Contributor Tim Benson is head teacher in a challenging East Ham primary school:

'Last year during our inspection I forced our [inspection] team to attend my school orchestra; 60 children all playing orchestral instruments. The children told of how they were to sing - we have a splendid choir too at Nelson Primary School - at the Festival Hall and the Excel Centre. Other children reported coming top of Newham's school football league. Not one word on sport or music was included in our final inspection report.' [p.32]

Out-of-date results

Thirdly, the performance data used by inspectors can be long out of date. This is a problem inspector Sarah Drake has encountered:

'Validated exam and test data are central to the inspection team's information gathering. Delays in getting validated statistical data about Sats, GCSE and other test results mean that what we are using can be up to 16 to 18 months out of date.' [p.21]

Vulnerable to manipulation

Finally, test and exam results may not indicate true standards but rather cramming or 'teaching to the test'. As Warwick Mansell points out, this is a critical weakness which Ofsted itself has identified, several times:

'Ironically, some of the best evidence of [teaching to the test]… comes from Ofsted itself, in annual reports published before the introduction of the latest inspection regime. David Bell's chief inspector's report for 2004-05 said, of Key Stage 3 English, for example: 'In many schools, too much time is devoted to test revision, with not enough regard to how pupils' skills could be developed in more meaningful ways.' For maths, Ofsted concluded for the same year: 'National test results continue to improve but this is as much due to better test technique as it is to a rise in standards of mathematical understanding'.' [p.62]

Parents know better

As well as high test and exam results being no guarantee of high standards of teaching and learning, contributor and parent Graham Lester George illustrates the way in which lower test and exam results do not necessarily reflect low standards.

His son's very popular and over-subscribed primary school was put into 'special measures' by Ofsted predominantly on the basis of 'unacceptable' Sats performance. Lester George describes the parents' shock at Ofsted's damning verdict:

'How could we have got it so wrong: we parents, many of whom were well-educated, well-informed professional people who believed in the school, its standards and ethos? How had the head, staff and children conspired to hide such gross mismanagement and incompetence from us? Well of course they hadn't.' [p.79]

Lester George goes on to explain how parents at the school then set up an 'action group' to protest against an inspection verdict. The group wrote to Ofsted outlining their grievance with the inspectorate's judgement:

'The [Ofsted] report's almost unremittingly harsh and damning conclusions and its consequent opinion that the school requires 'special measures' bear little or no relation to ours and our children's experiences of the school, its staff and the excellent education and care which we believe they have been providing.' [p.80]

The complaint was not upheld by Ofsted.

No value added

However, in spite of this catalogue of inadequacies, the centrality of test and exam results in inspection judgements is set to be accentuated even further. Ofsted has proposed that from September 2009, 'minimum' Key Stage test and GCSE results be attached to inspection judgements. [p.8]

'Most parents have total faith in Ofsted - a faith which is worryingly misplaced,' concludes Anastasia de Waal. 'Parents trust Ofsted reports to the extent that they can even influence where families choose to live. But the bottom line is that Ofsted's judgements are not reliable guides to school quality.'

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party. Civitas's education research seeks to take an objective view of educational standards in Britain. It aims to offer an improved perspective on how best to deliver equitable and high standards of education for all.

ii. Inspecting the Inspectors: Ofsted Under Scrutiny, edited by Anastasia de Waal, with a foreword by Barry Sheerman MP and contributions from: Kevin Avison (executive officer, Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship), Tim Benson (head teacher), Mick Brookes (general secretary, NAHT), Sarah Drake (practising school inspector), Graham Lester George (parent), John MacBeath (professor of education), Warwick Mansell (education reporter), Bavaani Nanthabalan (head teacher), Pauline Perry (former chief inspector under HMI) is published by Civitas, 77 Great Peter St, London SW1P 2EZ, tel 020 7799 6677, www.civitas.org.uk, price £11.75 inc. pp.