Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools

Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools
Ofsted: policy updates and key messages Finding a middle ground - National Middle Schools Forum Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools 17 October 2017

Curriculum: intent, implementation and impact
Development work for the new inspection framework 17 October 2017

Our curriculum survey Purposes and principles of the work
The framework for this survey Definition of the curriculum Overview of the research Emerging findings - now published 11 October in a commentary by HMCI: Phase one has shown that we have only begun to scratch the surface of this complex area. Phase two of the study will continue into the autumn and spring terms of this academic year …the emerging challenge Curriculum Survey

Purposes and Principles
Influence wider thinking on the role and importance of the curriculum in education by: developing a rigorous evidence base on the relative importance of the curriculum in outcomes identifying linkages between the curriculum and increased social mobility Curriculum Survey

Inform inspection policy by: understanding the current impact of inspection policy and practice on the curriculum in schools understanding the drivers of strategic decision making in schools and how to deploy inspection effectively in this context identifying the characteristics of an outstanding curriculum that is underpinned by evidence of successful outcomes for pupils Curriculum Survey

Inform policy making in the DfE by: testing the extent to which the curriculum at school and classroom level is influenced by national policy levers or other factors Curriculum Survey

Nine Box Framework Curriculum Survey

Working definition of the curriculum
“The curriculum is a framework for setting out the aims of a programme of education, including the knowledge and understanding to be gained at each stage (intent); for translating that framework over time into a structure and narrative, within an institutional context (implementation) and for evaluating what knowledge and understanding pupils have gained against expectations (impact/achievement).” Curriculum Survey

Research overview Reception: Schools: Level 2 in Colleges:
40 visits planned and publication in autumn 2017 Schools: 40 visits planned, first analysis complete, now planning next set of visits to complement initial findings Also analysing qualifications data, Year 9 options forms and speaking to parents and headteachers No judgements! Level 2 in Colleges: 15 visits planned and set for publication in the autumn Also collecting views from learners Curriculum Survey

October 2017 – Commentary 3 important consequences of a reduced understanding of curriculum: First, the primary curriculum is narrowing in some schools as a consequence of too great a focus on preparing for key stage 2 tests. Second, leaders have often misunderstood the purpose of key stage 3 and the new GCSE assessment criteria. And third, the intended curriculum for lower-attaining pupils in some secondary schools was often associated with the qualifications that count in league tables but not with other knowledge they should be acquiring. Curriculum Survey

Round table task Working on tables consider how you would explain the design, implementation and impact of the curriculum in your school? 17 October 2017

The emerging challenge
Having analysed our first visits to schools, we have been presented with a challenge… …the language being used is ambiguous, by both teachers and inspectors We want to develop a very detailed understanding of the techniques being applied in schools to develop and deliver the curriculum… …but, from our early evidence, there does not appear to be a shared understanding, across the sector, of what those techniques are or how to describe them Some examples… Curriculum Survey

‘Skills’ This has wide-ranging interpretations:
skills involved with specific subjects or activities (e.g. reading skills) what might be called ‘transferable skills’ (e.g. organisational skills, verbal communication skills, leadership skills) ‘executive functions’ (e.g. memory, attention, inhibitory control) Curriculum Survey

‘Enrichment’ This tends to refer to additional activities which enhance the curriculum, including visits from relevant members of the public that might relate to a particular topic and school visits. These may be aimed at particular groups of pupils (e.g. gifted & talented) or the whole class. An alternative meaning is associated with those who have already mastered a particular concept or learning, and they therefore acquire understanding at a deeper level through enrichment. In this case, it may be related to asking more analytical questions, or ‘harder work’. This takes place during lessons, and is a way of extending the learning of those pupils. Curriculum Survey

‘Repetition’ This has several interpretations – repetition as practice, repetition as lack of progression, repetition as layering of knowledge, or repetition in different contexts. Repetition of content could be a positive, where it enables children to practice so concepts can be embedded more deeply (‘intelligent practice’). It could be a negative where poor planning or progression mapping leads to content being revisited as new. This may be a problem particularly in Y7, where children from different primary schools have different levels of confidence in particular concepts, so some students may repeat specific prior learning. Repetition of skills in different contexts could have a positive effect on learning. Current research on executive functions suggests that practising in a single context leads to improved working memory skills but may not transfer to other contexts. Curriculum Survey

‘Theme-based’ approaches
Examples include: theme-based approaches; cross-curricular; topic; block teaching of themes; umbrella topic; imaginative learning projects; and completely integrated topic. Ways of grouping subjects/knowledge/skills, but often with subtle differences. A key difference is whether subjects are kept distinct Subject matter can be grouped together, e.g. an overarching topic of ‘Rivers’ may have lessons on changing state in distinct science lessons, and combining paint colours in art. By contrast, in a ‘completely integrated topic’ the learning may be similar but without making reference to whether it’s a science lesson or an art lesson. Curriculum Survey

‘Broad and balanced’ These terms are used frequently by schools and in evidence forms by inspectors, but there isn’t an indication of when a narrow, imbalanced curriculum becomes a broad, balanced curriculum. Or whether this is age-dependent. Also, the comments tend to refer to curriculum offering, and may not relate to the actual content of what pupils studying. Curriculum Survey

What kind of things do we need to clarify to move forward?
How do we describe the key points on the spectrum between teaching subjects discretely or merging subjects in topics or themes? What are the most common patterns of variation or repetition of content? What are the types of formative assessment and what impact do they have on the curriculum and vice versa? How do we describe the interplay between repetition, progression and formative assessment that captures how these might be appropriately or inappropriately aligned? What are the principal approaches to varying the pace of progression through the curriculum for pupils with different starting points and aptitudes? Curriculum Survey

The new inspection framework
Build on the curriculum work Build on other research work Time to develop and engage with the sectors Time for sectors to adjust, so…….… …commence in September 2019 Curriculum Survey

In the meantime, schools need to…
…know their curriculum – design and intent …know how their curriculum is being implemented …know what impact their curriculum is having on pupils’ knowledge and understanding Need for numbers? That’s up to the school – best way of ‘knowing’ (not ‘demonstrating’) the above? Issue: How the wider curriculum is reflected in Ofsted inspection reports Background: TES - both primary and secondary levels, English and Maths features substantially more than other subjects. TES say that Headteachers’ unions have suggested that this is because schools are under pressure (from the government and from inspectors) to focus on the subjects that will count in the league tables. They’ve expressed hope that Ofsted’s emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum may come out in future reports. This is for an online story, likely to appear tomorrow. Line to take: “Competency in English and Maths is essential for pupils to be able to learn well across a range of subjects, and for success in life beyond education. Understandably, all school inspection reports reflect how well these important core subjects are taught. “However, Ofsted inspectors also focus on whether schools offer a broad and balanced curriculum. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has made it very clear that schools should be offering a wide range of opportunities for pupils to learn within a deep, rich curriculum. A variety of subjects and courses helps pupils acquire knowledge, understanding and skills in all aspects of their education, and helps prepare them for life after school. “Our curriculum review, the initial findings of which will be published soon, will look not only at how well schools are doing this, but also at how future inspection can better reflect the quality of the curriculum on offer.’ Curriculum Survey

Curriculum – broad and balanced
Pupils must acquire competency in English and mathematics to access and learn well in a range of subjects – important in our current framework But we do focus on whether schools provide a broad and balanced curriculum, HMCI recently stated the importance of learning in deep, rich curriculum. October 2017 HMCI Commentary: The substance of the curriculum is a matter for government policy. Ofsted has a role in judging how well schools reflect the government’s intentions and don’t distort the aims that have been set. This is complex and is why this is a long- term investigation for us. It is one that I have no doubt will shape how we inspect in future. Issue: How the wider curriculum is reflected in Ofsted inspection reports Background: TES - both primary and secondary levels, English and Maths features substantially more than other subjects. TES say that Headteachers’ unions have suggested that this is because schools are under pressure (from the government and from inspectors) to focus on the subjects that will count in the league tables. They’ve expressed hope that Ofsted’s emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum may come out in future reports. This is for an online story, likely to appear tomorrow. Line to take: “Competency in English and Maths is essential for pupils to be able to learn well across a range of subjects, and for success in life beyond education. Understandably, all school inspection reports reflect how well these important core subjects are taught. “However, Ofsted inspectors also focus on whether schools offer a broad and balanced curriculum. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has made it very clear that schools should be offering a wide range of opportunities for pupils to learn within a deep, rich curriculum. A variety of subjects and courses helps pupils acquire knowledge, understanding and skills in all aspects of their education, and helps prepare them for life after school. “Our curriculum review, the initial findings of which will be published soon, will look not only at how well schools are doing this, but also at how future inspection can better reflect the quality of the curriculum on offer.’ Curriculum Survey

Questions

So what is ahead for 2017/18? The short inspection consultation – now published and new consultation also about modifying the short inspection model. Continuing to gather evidence for the curriculum survey and review the findings. Developing three new inspection frameworks. The short inspection consultation closed on 18 August 2017. If the proposals are accepted it is expected that the changes will take effect after the October half term (in 2017). Published

Ofsted consultation – June 2017
Between the 15 June 2017 – 18 August 2017, Ofsted consulted on the following changes to short inspections: Extend the window for the conversion of short inspections into section 5 inspections to take place within a maximum of 15 working days after the short inspection, from the current 48 hour period. AND Some good schools to receive a section 5 inspection instead of a short inspection where Ofsted’s risk assessment indicates that inspectors may need to gather more evidence to reach a judgement about the school. We received 1,690 responses. This consultation was launched to address, among other things, the impact of the current approach to conversion on OIs, who are frequently held on contingency and stood down at short notice. This is a frustrating consequence of the current 48-hour conversion period for these busy school leaders. The uncertainty about their timetable makes it harder for them to plan and creates a burden on them and their schools. It is also operationally impractical for Ofsted. Changes to short inspection consultation

Outcome of consultation
Three fifths of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that some good schools should receive a section 5 inspection instead of a short inspection. Just over half of respondents disagreed with extending the window of conversion to a period of up to 15 days, but some were prepared to accept a shorter period. Three fifths of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that some good schools should receive a section 5 inspection instead of a short inspection. The majority of the school leaders and teachers we spoke to as part of our consultation said that they welcomed the clarity of this approach and considered it fair, although they also cautioned that it could give the appearance that Ofsted is treating some good schools unequally. Just under a third of respondents disagreed or disagreed strongly with this proposal. Just over half of respondents disagreed with extending the window of conversion to a period of up to 15 days, but some were prepared to accept a shorter period. Headteachers and teachers were concerned about the uncertainty that the 15-day window would create about when the follow-on inspection would take place and what the outcome of that inspection would be. They were concerned that the length of this waiting period would create a high degree of anxiety for teachers. As a result, respondents preferred a shorter waiting period, particularly if this led to greater certainty about when inspectors would return. A number of respondents suggested a conversion window of five to 10 days. The public response of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) emphasised the importance of a tightly defined window for when inspectors would return. This was echoed by the headteachers who participated in the pilots, who believed that uncertainty and anxiety would be reduced if staff knew more clearly when the follow-on inspection would take place. An additional issue was raised by the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) and others over the course of the consultation: Should Ofsted send more inspectors to large secondaries? Some respondents expressed concern about two inspectors’ capacity to gather sufficient evidence over the course of one day to confirm whether the largest schools remain good. In response, we analysed the outcomes of these inspections and sought feedback from senior HMI (SHMI) and HMI who have conducted a considerable number of these inspections. We are fully confident that short inspection judgements of large secondary schools have been secure. Nevertheless, it is also clear that, in the case of very large secondary schools, inspectors are under considerable pressure to ensure that all relevant evidence is collected and properly considered. Changes to short inspection consultation

The way forward Starting from October half term, we will:
Carry out section 5 inspections for some good schools where our risk assessment tells us that a short inspection would be highly likely to convert. Wherever possible, keep the window of conversion at the current 48 hours, but may go up to a maximum of seven working days, where circumstances dictate that to be necessary. Increase the short inspection tariff in large secondaries with more than 1,100 students by one on-site day – responding to points raised during the consultation. We believe this approach strikes a balance between minimising the burden on the sector and being able to deliver the short inspection programme. However, these changes still mean that we will have to hold some Ofsted Inspectors on contingency, and this is not a positive arrangement in the long run. Seven working days Clearly, some inspections will convert in more than the current 48 hours, but the maximum of seven days is significantly less than the proposal of up to 15 days. Finally, we will send slightly larger teams to conduct short inspections of the largest secondary schools. We expect that most short inspections that have to convert will do so within the current timescale. If the follow-on inspection cannot begin within 48 hours, it will not take place later than the end of the week following the week in which the short inspection took place. Conversion Most good schools will continue to remain good without the need for a conversion and the number of conversions will reduce significantly. A school that remains good will receive a letter, as they do now, confirming that the school remains good. The school can continue to expect that its next inspection will be a short inspection in approximately three years’ time. Because of the increased proportion of section 5 inspections, we expect the number and proportion of short inspections that will convert to reduce substantially Risk assessment This group currently makes up about 20% of all good schools, although it will vary over time. We will take this change forward in line with our proposals in the public consultation. Response to NAHT Ofsted will increase the short inspection tariff in large secondaries with more than 1,100 students by one on-site day. While the judgements currently reached in short inspections of large secondaries are secure, we recognise that inspectors are under considerable pressure to ensure that all relevant evidence is collected and properly considered. We will therefore add one inspector to the on-site tariff of a short inspection of any school with 1,100 or more pupils. Why we need to go further and consult a second time The piloting we have undertaken suggests that the conversion window proposed and the reduction in the number of conversions is likely to reduce but not eliminate the challenge for OIs and for Ofsted. Specifically, our piloting of a shorter conversion window showed that some OIs will still have to be held on contingency to accommodate the possibility that inspections may convert. We are therefore publishing a fresh consultation. The revised consultation asks the sector to support new arrangements to be implemented early in the spring term 2018. Changes to short inspection consultation

Plans for future consultation
Ofsted launched a fresh consultation on 21 September, aimed at further refining our approach to short inspections. We will continue short inspections and conversions, however we propose three changes: Inspectors should continue to convert short inspections, normally within 48 hours, if there are serious concerns about safeguarding, behaviour or the quality of education. Where a short inspection does not convert but inspectors are not fully confident that the school would receive its current grade if a full section 5 were carried out, the school should receive a letter setting out strengths and priorities for improvement and a section 5 should be carried out at a later date. Where a short inspection does not convert, but inspectors identify strong practice that could indicate that the school is improving towards being outstanding, the school should receive a letter setting out strengths and priorities for further improvement and a section 5 inspection should be carried out at a later date. Changes to short inspection consultation

Proposal 1 Convert inspections within 48 hours if there are serious concerns about safeguarding, behaviour or the quality of education Keeping children safe, while they are in their care, is the paramount responsibility of schools. Managing pupils’ behaviour effectively so that learning and the progress that pupils make are not disrupted is also a key consideration. And parents need to know as soon as possible if the quality of education is likely to have declined significantly into inadequacy We propose that if inspectors have seen evidence that the school may be inadequate in one or more of the graded judgements under section 5 inspections, the short inspection will convert to a full section 5 inspection, normally within 48 hours. In these circumstances, conversion would be necessary because the school would be highly unlikely to achieve its current grade were a section 5 inspection to be carried out. If the school provision includes early years and/or post-16 programmes of study and the evidence indicates that one of those areas may be inadequate, inspectors will need to take into account the size of the early years and/or sixth-form provision in relation to the size of the school when considering the impact of these judgements on the overall effectiveness grade. If early years and/or post-16 provision represent a small proportion of the overall school provision and if concerns about these aspects do not extend to the rest of the school, inspectors will not convert the short inspection to a full section 5 inspection. However, if they represent a reasonable proportion of school provision or concerns about them raise questions about the effectiveness of the overall provision, a conversion will take place. For example, shortcomings in the leadership and management of a sixth form may be indicative of wider failings in the leadership and management of the school overall. If a short inspection converts to a full section 5 inspection, all the grades on the four-point scale will be considered by the inspectors who conduct the section 5 inspection. Conversion does not in any way predetermine the outcome of a section 5 inspection. Changes to short inspection consultation

Proposal 2 Where a short inspection does not convert but inspectors are not fully confident that the school would receive its current grade if a full section 5 were carried out, the school should receive a letter setting out strengths and priorities for improvement and a section 5 should be carried out at a later date. The letter to the school will be published it will confirm that their judgement has not changed and will identify clear priorities for improvement. In this way, we would hope to ‘catch schools before they fall from being good’ and give them some more time to improve. The letter to the school will be published. It will say that the school’s next inspection will be a section 5 inspection that will take place within the statutory timeframe. In line with statutory regulations, the ‘inspection window clock’ will not be reset by the short inspection because the essential test of those regulations has not been met. The school’s current overall effectiveness judgement of good will stand until a new full inspection is carried out. The letter schools receive will confirm this. 1This will apply when: - safeguarding is effective - behaviour is not inadequate - the evidence from the short inspection does not indicate that any of the section 5 graded judgements is likely to be inadequate - the evidence from the short inspection indicates that the school might not achieve a judgement of good if a full section 5 inspection were to be carried out. For these schools, the inspection letter will confirm that their judgement has not changed. It will identify clear priorities for improvement. The school’s next inspection will be a section 5 inspection that must be conducted within five years from the end of the academic year in which the previous section 54 inspection took place. Typically, this will be within one to two years because of the timing of inspections of good schools. This period will give the school the opportunity to address weaknesses and seek support to improve from appropriate bodies. Changes to short inspection consultation

Proposal 3 Where a short inspection does not convert, but inspectors identify strong practice that could indicate that the school is improving towards being outstanding, the school should receive a letter setting out strengths and priorities for further improvement and a section 5 inspection should be carried out at a later date In this way, we hope to give the school time for the strong practice to be consolidated and the opportunity for it to be celebrated through confirmation of an outstanding judgement The letter to the school will be published. It will make clear that the school’s next inspection will be a section 5 inspection because of the strengths exhibited at the short inspection. It will confirm that the school remains good and highlight the specific areas where particularly strong practice has been evidenced. The decision on the timing of the full section 5 inspection will be for the relevant Ofsted regional director to determine. Typically, this will be less than two years, and could be much sooner, because we expect this to be earlier than the normal time for the next inspection of a good school. Schools may request an early inspection and these requests will be considered, as now, by the Ofsted region. Changes to short inspection consultation

We are not proposing any…
Changes to the purpose of a short inspection or to the short inspection methodology. Changes to a school’s experience of a short inspection when inspectors are on site. All other aspects of short inspection practice will remain the same. [if asked about “three day inspections”: To reduce the burden on very large schools, Ofsted will continue the current practice of having a small team of inspectors carry out the converted full inspection over two days, rather than a large team on one day.] This proposed changes are not about predetermining the outcome of inspections. Rather, through this change, we will be able to recognise the circumstances of individual schools in our inspection approach and give those schools a better experience of inspection. Changes to short inspection consultation

Next steps The consultation opened on the Thursday 21 September 2017 and closes on Wednesday 8 November 2017 Additional consultation activity is taking place throughout October 2017 We will publish the main findings and our response in December 2017. We expect to implement the finalised changes in January 2018. We hope you will respond to our consultation! Changes to short inspection consultation

Focused reviews of MATs.
To David THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO YOUR MAT EVENT Intro me – role remits share some key findings and pose some considerations for you as a Trust 17 October 2017

Background and context
Currently Ofsted has no specific statutory/legal power to inspect a multi- academy trust No separate inspection framework for reviewing MATs – completed by agreement Secretary of State letter to HMCI of 16 January 2015 set out basis for these focused reviews: writes-to-ofsted Starting point is focused (or ‘batched’) inspections of individual academies within the MAT that are in window You can find our published MAT review letters at: inspections-of-multi-academy-trusts No separate framework for inspecting MATs No legal power to inspect a MAT Arrangements for these should be broadly as set out in the letter between SOS and HMCI Usual section 8 monitoring visits, section 5 and s5 RI 17 October 2017

Background and context
By conducting focused inspection activity in academies within a single MAT, HMCI is able to: better fulfil the general duty to keep the Secretary of State for Education informed about matters connected with his/her remit; and to perform functions for the general purpose of encouraging and promoting improvement within HMCI’s remit. MAT focused review is a two week event – first week inspecting individual academies Through this model, Ofsted batch inspects individual academies and at the same time considers the effectiveness of management and governance arrangements of the MAT in relation to these schools. findings from the focused inspection activity are set out in a letter to the Chief Executive of the MAT, and copied to the Secretary of State, highlighting specific areas where the support and challenge that the MAT offers its academies can be improved. The letter is also published on the Ofsted website. Ofsted and DfE recognise that, as the school system evolves, MAT-level accountability will also need to evolve and this is why Ofsted and DfE are working together in considering how this model can best be adapted to the changing landscape. 17 October 2017

Week 1 of the focused review
Focused inspections can include section 8 short inspections, section 8 monitoring and section 5 inspection ‘batched inspections’ (both HMI and OI led) Academies must be in the window for inspection – i.e. would be due inspection within the academic year For other academies in the MAT, we canvass views through a telephone survey All findings drawn together to inform a range of MAT-level meetings/challenge discussions with leaders in week 2 HMI lead Views from as many as possible – other leaders 17 October 2017

Week 2 of the focused review
Review the strategic work and impact of the MAT, including discussions with key personnel such as CEO and Trustees Review the outcomes of the academies inspected as part of the focused review and discuss with leaders their analysis of the performance of other academies, the quality of support and challenge offered by the MAT Gather further evidence about the impact of the MAT on academies - level of oversight, challenge and support Must have clarity about funding agreements at different levels. What statutory powers are delegated to who and why? Scheme of delegation - 17 October 2017

Forward look 17 October 2017

Key priorities for 2017/18 Development work for the new inspection frameworks: - Potentially a new way of evaluating/inspecting MATs by September A new ITE framework by summer A new common education inspection framework for September 2019. To do list: 1. Trainer notes: Looking ahead- 10:24-10:25am (1 minute on slide) We are nearing the end of the first two years of the common inspection framework across our education remits. We have kept our promise to keep the framework stable for the last two years. We are confident that we can extend this stability until September 2019 when we will introduce the new common inspection framework. This will give providers and inspectors further certainty over what we will inspect for the next two years. It will also allow us to research into those areas that we know require a deeper look during inspection and identify those areas that need little, or no attention in future. We will be engaging with inspectors, providers and researchers between now and September 2019 to ensure we develop the new framework by drawing on the best expertise and knowledge available. This work will be led by Sean Harford (The National Director, Education), Matthew Purves (Deputy Director, Education Inspection Policy, Schools Policy) and Joanna Hall (Deputy Director, Schools, Schools Policy).

Questions

Thank you

Ofsted on the web and on social media

Minimal changes seen at the national level this year
Only minor changes to the proportion of schools judged good or outstanding at their most recent inspection, compared to August 2016: All schools (21,000) – 89% no change Special schools – 94%, an increase from 93% Pupil referral units - 89%, an increase from 86% Primary schools – 91%, an increase from 90% Secondary schools - 79%, an increase from 78% Middle schools - as at the end of September 86% (105 /122) This footer is edited in >Insert > Header & Footer

Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Joanna Hall HMI Deputy Director Schools"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback