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