All routine Ofsted inspections will now be put on hold, Schools Week has revealed.
The watchdog has halted inspections following prime minister Boris Johnson’s announcement on 16th March to scale up coronavirus prevention measures.
An Ofsted spokesperson told Schools Week they are “putting a hold on all this week’s routine inspections of schools, social care, early years and further education providers.
“We are in discussions with the DfE about the longer-term picture.”
Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said: “I’m grateful for the Secretary of State’s permission to suspend routine inspections.
“It’s clearly the right thing to do when teachers and social workers are under pressure as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. We all need to support them in their work.”
Education secretary Gavin Williamson said he recognises that teachers are “on the frontline of our national effort” and given the pressures on education leaders and their staff, “it is only right that Ofsted temporarily suspends its routine inspection timetable”.
He added that current medical and scientific guidance “indicates that at this stage, schools and other educational settings should remain open”.
However, he said that “if there comes a point when the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser tell us that closing schools [and colleges] would be in the best interests of children and teachers, we will take this step”.
The only exception to Ofsted’s inspection pause is if its team “has identified concerns about safeguarding arrangements at the provider”.
If this occurs, inspectors have been “asked to seek advice from Ofsted senior managers to inform the decision to progress, or not, with the inspection”.
A statement from Ofsted added: “For absolute clarity, all monitoring visits and inspections that have started (i.e. those that commenced yesterday), have been stopped and inspectors will not return to provider premises today.
“Providers that have been notified that inspection will commence today or later this week will not now happen. Providers are being contacted to inform them of these decisions.
“Ofsted will be discussing with the DfE as a priority what this new guidance means to our planned inspection activity over the coming weeks and months, and it will update providers as soon as it has clarity.”
Ofsted is still looking to introduce campus-level inspection grades for colleges – but the change will not be introduced this year.
Paul Joyce, the inspectorate’s deputy director for FE and skills, has said that Ofsted had met with a group of representatives from large college groups convened by the Association of Colleges and had carried out “a couple of fact-finding visits and a scoping exercise to see what the scale of the challenge is likely to be”.
Ofsted is planning to carry out pilots for this new approach. However, the change “certainly won’t be something that’s introduced in September 2020”, Mr Joyce added.
The move was first mooted back in 2016, following restructuring resulting from the area reviews of college provision. At present, however many campuses a college group has, it is still only graded once, at the central corporation level.
The approach has been criticised by large groups such as NCG. In 2018, its constituent parts, from Newcastle to London and from Carlisle to Kidderminster, were all inspected at the same time by a team of 33 inspectors – the largest single inspection in Ofsted history.
Ofsted campus grades ‘on the cards’
Mr Joyce said:
“I’ve been having meetings with sector representatives about campus-level inspections, about making inspection more transparent and more accountable to localities. This is a way off yet and this won’t be introduced this academic year.
“We are just starting to look at what campus-level inspection might look like, how we might do it. We’ll continue to be talking with the DfE and the sector , and we’ll have some pilots to look at how that activity will play out.”
“This is not a straightforward [move]. The landscape is very complex so we need to think about this very carefully and plan what we’re going to do and make sure we introduce something that’s absolutely fit for purpose.
“This certainly won’t be something that’s introduced in September 2020. We will look at developing that methodology and if anything changes we will go out to consultation and give the sector plenty of notice.”
This year’s annual reportfinds the overall quality of education and care in England is good and improving, but chief inspector warns against complacency.
Launching her third Annual Report as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman said today (21 Jan) that the great majority of schools, colleges, nurseries and child minders in England are good or outstanding, reflecting the hard work of teachers, leaders and support staff who work there.
86% of schools are judged to be good or outstanding
96% of early years (EY) providers are good or outstanding
81% of inspected further education and skills (FES) providers are good or outstanding
This year’s Annual Report also highlights improving developments in children’s social care, with 48% of local authority children services now rated good or outstanding, while 84% of children’s homes, fostering and adoption agencies, residential special schools and other social care providers returned a good or outstanding grade in their most recent inspections.
Ofsted’s core job is to inspect, regulate and report objectively. The Annual Report provides a summary of findings from thousands of inspections and visits and research published over the past year. It presents a ‘state of the nation’ commentary on the quality of education, training and children’s social care services in England. Ofsted is the only independent body that can provide this view across England.
It’s important not to let complacency creep in
However, the Annual Report warns that a minority of schools and other education providers continue to make decisions in their own best interests, rather than those of their learners. This includes various forms of ‘gaming’ that seek to maximise the school’s attainment data and league table positions.
Ofsted is concerned that these providers are failing to act with integrity or focus on what really matters. As a result, some children – particularly the most disadvantaged – are not being well prepared for adult life.
Speaking to an audience of education and social care professionals and policy experts in Westminster, Ms Spielman said that, while the overall picture is good and improving, it’s important not to let complacency creep in.
Ms Spielman said:
It’s important that we don’t allow complacency to creep in. We must ask the tough questions and highlight inadequacy, as well as excellence.
… So, as we look at the high standards of education and good quality care that most are achieving, we must ask: what lies beneath? Away from the excellent work going on in many places, what is getting in the way of further and faster improvement – and what does that mean for our children?
Ofsted launched a new education inspection framework (EIF) in September 2019, which put the quality of the curriculum at the centre of its approach, with less focus on performance data. Since then, there has been a real shift in emphasis in schools. School leaders and teachers have widely welcomed Ofsted’s new approach and the opportunities it has given them to think carefully about their curriculum, and make sure it gives every child the chance to acquire the same knowledge and learning.
We must guard against restricting education excessively. Exam results are important but have to reflect real achievement. We should not incentivise apparent success without substance. This doesn’t represent a good education for any child. And for those who aren’t being read a different story every night, who aren’t taken to the museum at the weekend, who don’t get the chemistry set for Christmas, it is especially impoverished. These children need and deserve a proper, substantial, broad education, for as long as schools have them.
We recently inspected a school that had been requiring every child to take a sports science qualification, using up a valuable GCSE slot, whether or not they had any interest in sports science at all. We’ve seen schools requiring almost every child to take a qualification in English for Speakers of Other Languages, even though they were nearly all native English speakers who were also taking English Language and Literature GCSEs.
We’ve seen schools that have been cutting back drastically on all children’s opportunities to discover the joys of languages, art, music, drama and humanities – so that most children have to give them up at age 12 or 13, when they have barely begun to discover what these subjects have to offer.
… We mustn’t succumb to the seductive but wrong-headed logic that we help disadvantaged children by turning a blind eye to schools that narrow education in this way, as long as they deliver acceptable grades at the end. Grades are hollow if they don’t reflect a proper education underneath. And we have no idea yet who the most talented and singular women and men are, who will drive this country forward in the 2030s, 40s and 50s. They could be in any primary or secondary school anywhere. All of them should have the chance to develop their talents. Poorer children shouldn’t get a worse choice.
Regarding Further Education and Skills
At the other end of the age range, the discussion of further education and skills (FES) has taken on extra significance. In 10 days, the UK will leave the European Union and start to plot its future trading relationship with Europe and the rest of the world.
Now, more than ever, we must think strategically about skills and how the further education sector is funded and encouraged to provide the right courses of the right quality.
I’m not happy that some colleges steer too many of their students towards superficially attractive courses that fill their rolls and attract funding – whether or not they open doors for the students who take them.
This doesn’t mean the courses young people are taking are completely worthless. But flooding a local job market with young people with (say) low-level arts and media qualifications, when the big growth in demand is for green energy workers, will result in too many under-employed and dissatisfied young people and wind turbines left idle.
We need a clearer focus on matching skills to opportunities. Not just for Brexit. Many FE providers operate in places the government says it wants to ‘level up’. What better way to level up than to radically improve the quality of vocational and skills education in our towns? But it does also mean tackling the small minority of colleges that have under-performed or been ‘stuck’ for years.
Apprenticeships have become a much larger part of our post-16 work. Over the last two years, the number of further education and skills institutions has grown by over 60%. Most of the growth has been in independent learning providers (ILPs), who offer the majority of apprenticeships. Their numbers have more than doubled to 1,200. Remember, there are fewer than 200 general FE colleges.
And our inspections tell us that too many providers are not clear about the purpose of their apprenticeships. The quality of courses is still sometimes too low and the proportion of ILPs judged good or outstanding declined this year, for the third year in succession. This needs to change.
Changes to the funding model and the introduction of the levy have driven growth in the number of providers, but they’ve also bent apprenticeships out of shape. Even with more providers, the overall number of apprentices has dropped – and this has a particular impact on younger age-groups.
Apprenticeships can be transformational for young people. And yet one in five of all new levy-funded apprenticeships are higher- and degree-level, often aimed at people who are already doing the job, or who don’t need the leg up that a great entry-level apprenticeship can provide.
Meanwhile, there are more than twice as many apprentices in business and retail as there are in the priority areas of construction and engineering.
The government and providers must look at what can be done to redress the balance across apprenticeships. The critical 16 to 19 age-group needs to be better catered for and decisions must be made about how to reverse the decline in school leavers taking up apprenticeships.
More generally, there is clearly room for greater targeting of government funding in post-16 education of all kinds.
Other concerns highlighted in this year’s Annual Report include:
Ofsted continues to be worried about the number of pupils leaving schools during their GCSE years. Twenty thousand pupils left their state-funded secondary schools between Year 10 (2017) and Year 11 (2018). There are 340 schools with exceptional levels of pupil movement, of which around 100 have been inspected this year.
This year, Ofsted’s unregistered schools task force provided the evidence for three successful convictions of illegal schools and their operators. However, legal constraints still make it too easy for illegal schools to operate in defiance of the law. Ofsted urgently need stronger powers to seize documents and the Government needs to tighten the legal definition of a school and of full-time education.
Ofsted’s inspections of provision for children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) has exposed a lack of coherence and coordination. Local leaders across education, health and care do not always see themselves as collectively accountable for this provision. Too often, parents encounter fractures in assessment and planning. In these cases, the system is not working well as a whole to make the best decisions and achieve the best outcomes for children and young people.
Local authority children’s services continue to endure significant financial pressures. Challenges across children’s services are underpinned by a chronic lack of funding, set against increasing demand.
The children’s home sector is facing huge challenges in sufficiency and capability, which need national oversight and strategic leadership. There are not enough children’s homes in the right places across the country, and there is no central joined-up strategy or plan to meet children’s needs.
In the FES sector, there has been rapid growth in the number of new apprenticeship training providers. However, a gap remains between the knowledge and skills required for the economy and current provision, in particular in relation to training for low-skilled workers. The sector needs to work much more in tandem with the government’s Industrial Strategy.
The early years sector has seen a continued decline in the number of childminders. Meanwhile, more and more nurseries are joining large national and international providers, but are inspected individually. These nurseries are more likely to be rated outstanding, which suggests that strong practice can be shared effectively across the whole nursery chain. There may be benefits from a different inspection model that would allow individual inspections of nurseries to be brought together and features across the whole chain to be analysed.
Increasingly, decisions that affect children’s education and care are being made by central management in large multi academy trusts, nursery operators or children’s home operators. Decisions about the curriculum, the model of care, staffing, safeguarding and behaviour policies go to the heart of what Ofsted needs to consider through inspection and regulation, but the legal framework for accountability is not keeping up with the evolution of the education and care sectors.
In the coming year, Ofsted will look more closely at some of these areas to see if things can be done differently to improve outcomes for children.
Ofsted is launching a new research project to look at the subcontracting landscape within further education #FE
Subcontracting remains a popular option for FE providers. Last academic year, subcontracting accounted for around £650 million in government funding on adult learning and apprenticeship provision and also fully or partially funded courses for over 25,000 students aged 16 to 19 at hundreds of subcontractors.
Most FE providers were judged as good or outstanding at their last inspection. Since February 2018, we have increased our focus on the management and quality of subcontracted provision during inspections, and this increased focus continues in our new education inspection framework (EIF).
A subcontractor’s offering cannot be disentangled from the contract agreed with the main provider. Therefore, we place responsibility for learners’ experiences on the main provider and do not directly inspect standalone subcontractors. This research will explore the relationship between the main provider’s contracting arrangements and the quality of provision offered by subcontractors.
The aims of our new research are to learn more about the subcontracting landscape and the impact that a contract between a main provider and subcontractor can have on the learning experience. The research will also inform how we inspect main providers that choose to use subcontracted provision.
This autumn, we will carry out pre-arranged visits to a variety of subcontractors that have contracts with FE providers we’ve recently inspected. At the same time, we will examine our previous inspection reports for references to subcontracting, and hold focus groups with inspectors about the process of evaluating subcontracted learning.
Visits are not inspections and will not result in a written report for the subcontractor.
Ofsted Deputy Director, Further Education and Skills, Paul Joyce, said:
We made a commitment to increase our focus on subcontracting, which remains a major part of the FE landscape. I hope this research will give us more insight into the experience learners get at a provider, which in turn will help us refine this part of our inspection work.
We will work with subcontractors who take part in the research to make sure we do not place an additional burden on staff. All visits will be carried out purely for research purposes and will not double up as inspections. This research is part of our commitment to be a force for improvement in the sectors we inspect, and to make sure that everything we do is supported by evidence.
By SIMON ASHWORTH chief policy officer, Association of Employment and Learning Providers.
Ofsted’s new-style inspections have been much publicised, but some AELP members have been surprised by the new format. Simon Ashworth sets out what providers should expect and how to prepare.
The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) has been hearing from its members that inspections under Ofsted’s new framework (EIF) was not what they expected and differed to what they had previously seen. Their comments echo those of Woodspeen Training in FE Week that the EIF represents “a pretty significant shift in focus”. So what are the main changes and how can providers be ready for them?
First, far less of the inspection process will be channelled through the nominee. The inspection team will instead work with the key individuals responsible for “curriculum areas”, which we believe is a really positive change.
Second, Ofsted will review the provider’s curriculum – and that doesn’t simply mean programme content or materials. Inspectors now want to look at the whole end-to-end process of the provider’s programmes; hence the importance of having strong curriculum leads who are prepared for the new process.
Effective “curriculum sequencing” will be inspected to ensure that the provider’s programme has been designed, structured and delivered coherently and logically. This becomes even more important for programmes where there is now more teaching and less assessment.
A good example to consider is how providers who deliver training to level 2 apprentices plan for and deliver not only the level 1 functional skills, but also the current requirement to work towards and at least take the level 2 functional skills test. The short answer is that it should not be an afterthought bolted on at the end.
“Deep dive” inspections have now been added to the sector’s unrivalled liking for jargon. Much of the previous inspection activity was sometimes seen as operating in silos; for example inspectors would observe a class or hold a focus group with learners and report back on, say, teaching effectiveness. Under the deep dive regime, they may follow the journey of different learners all the way through their entire experience with the provider from recruitment to the preparation for end-point assessment.
Data is less important, but from our discussions with Ofsted, providers should still be able to explain the reasons for their performance. With apprenticeships specifically, there is little comparable performance data for standards because of the move away from frameworks, so this is a sensible change.
Nevertheless, one area of focus on is progression and destination data. A provider might have low achievement rates that look relatively poor on paper, but what is the story behind that? In the case of traineeships, qualification achievement rates might be low, because the learners left early as they got a job (one of the main aims of the programme) and didn’t have time to complete their maths and English qualifications as a result. Being able to articulate examples such as this is key to showing inspectors the whole picture.
On recognition of prior learning and off-the-job training, AELP is hearing reports of providers being misled and incorrectly advised to rip up their self-assessment reports (SARs) and quality improvement plans (QIPs) and rewrite these against the new EIF. Ofsted does not require this.
As providers move through their individual self-assessment cycle, they will naturally self-assess against the new framework. In the interim, it is worth considering the use of a positioning statement to sit alongside the SAR and QIP to help articulate to inspectors the transitional process and journey they are on.
Remember that the SAR and the QIP are for the benefit of the provider and not a paper exercise to simply provide to Ofsted for inspection. Commensurately, Ofsted will place less emphasis on the accuracy of a SAR, but more on how effectively the provider uses the SAR and QIP to drive improvements.
By understanding and preparing for these changes, a “deep dive” inspection should be limited to a few ripples rather than whipping up waves for providers.
Fusce et metus porttitor nibh pharetra sagittis eget ac urna. Nulla molestie urna libero, a tincidunt orci. Duis ut eros elit, non venenatis eros. Nullam id lorem at enim pretium egestas nec at nunc. Proin facilisis porttitor dolor. Ut accumsan urna vel nulla volutpat pharetra malesuada libero blandit.