No notice inspections make a mockery of notions of a high status profession

The announcement by the Chief Inspector less than two weeks into the implementation of a new inspection framework is quite extraordinary number of counts:

No notice inspections were not introduced after the previous consultation for very sound reasons.  School inspections are not simply an audit of compliance like the inspection of health and safety in a restaurant or care home. They are about making informed, evidence-based professional judgements about a wide range of complex institutions. By definition this implies that such judgements need to be based on a solid and reliable evidence base. Arriving with no notice at all to do a spot check on behaviour following a critical inspection is a completely different issue and cannot be compared with a full inspection leading to a published report on a wide range of aspects of the school's work.

The current inspection framework draws on a wide range of data prior to and during the inspection visit together with observations of life and work of school. Key staff  are rigorously interviewed, time is spent in the classroom the views of staff and students are gathered. Their assessment is informed by appropriate evidence arising from their self-evaluation processes.  The idea that the new Parent View website which is so open to abuse in any way strengthens that evidence base  makes a mockery of the considerable efforts schools currentlyto elicit feedback from parents  .

Schools currently receive up to two or possibly three days notice. This just about gives sufficient time to rearrange diaries in order to ensure that everyone who needs to be available for the inspectors is on-site and that the information that needs to be available for inspectors is ready for them. The idea that this length of time would be long enough to pull the wool over inspectors’ eyes is an insult to the inspectors and the professionals who work in those schools.  Some commentators have been asking whether this decision was a knee-jerk reaction to the report last week about bribes paid to children to stay away from school.  If there is any truth behind this anecdote then the unacceptable activities of a small number of individuals are not a reason to change the whole system.

No notice inspections are based on the idea that everyone who needs to be seen by an inspector will be available when they arrive. The question is therefore begged what happens when the headteacher is off-site at a perfectly legitimate meeting or key member of staff responsible for an area the inspectors want and need to investigate is attending a child protection meeting or on an educational visit. The absence of these key people could lead to flawed judgements based on inadequate evidence which are reaching implications for the reputation of the school.

Above all however this proposal is deeply insulting and makes a complete mockery of the government’s increasingly hollow claims that it wishes to create a high status profession. How can a profession which cannot even be trusted to be given the courtesy of 24 hours notice for inspection be described as high status?

An experienced, highly regarded headteacher of a school which has been graded outstanding by Ofsted described this as a ‘cavalier disregard for consultation’ and ‘ongoing contempt for the professionalism of schools and teachers.. which is starting to look like persecution’. The government should be extremely concerned when leading professionals like this ASCL member feel disenfranchised and demoralised and are talking of resignation.

ASCL has always been quite clear that inspections are an important and necessary part of school accountability. Effective, modern inspection is challenging, rigorous, identifies and spreads good practice, validates self-evaluation processes and helps schools to improve. All of this is achieved by working with school leaders not by playing cat and mouse with them.