Ofsted new framework 2019 – the reflections of a pilot school

Now the consultation has ended I believe it’s a good time to reflect and share the experience of being a Headteacher in the development of the new framework. It’s really important to recognise that this was a pilot inspection in the relatively early stages of the consultation (January 2019), these are my reflections and not that of Ofsted, the experience was true at the time but as with a consultation and further pilots I would anticipate development to the methodology used.

Please treat the content of this blog as my reflections and my interpretation of the process only, I have no affiliation with Ofsted and they have had no input to this blog. When the framework finally goes live in September 2019 the approach may be very different.

Setting the scene:

My School

• Average size Junior school in Bath
• Above the ‘coasting’ school target and floor target
• Last Ofsted inspection was under my leadership in the Summer of 2017
• This pilot did not include notification to parents and surveys (staff and parents) would not be carried out
• As a Headteacher I have been through 3 previous inspection (one section 5 and two section 8’s) you can read about these experiences here – MrBonline.co.uk

The pilot:

•  I was approached by Ofsted in November 2018 and asked if I would be interested in trialling the new Ofsted Framework
• I was requested to trial a Section 5 inspection (full inspection)
• This was optional and I was free to say 'no'
• My school was selected on the basis of many factors
• No report was to be produced and no grading given to the school. HMI would avoid the use of ‘grading language’ during the pilot
• The safeguarding section of the framework would be carried out in full and the inspection would convert to a full inspection if failings/ concerns were found in this part of the pilot
• I would have contact with the lead HMI for several weeks before the pilot and the date would be arranged in advance (there would not be a ‘phone call’ on the day/ day before the pilot)
• I agreed to a shadow HMI as part of the pilot meaning three HMIs visiting my school for the ‘inspection’

The structure of the pilot:

Day 1 (non-inspection day)

The HMI would arrive at my school for ‘on site preparation’ arriving at 01:30pm and leaving before 6pm

Day 2 and Day 3

Full inspection activities

Throughout the rest of this blog post I will try and reflect on the areas of the process that I have experience that are different to the current framework, I will try and refer to aspects of the framework itself referring you to sections of the draft handbook. Hopefully this will help me explain how a statement in the new framework was carried out in reality.

Onsite preparation

This was carried out with one member of the Inspection Team (in my case the Lead HMI) and was mainly office based. The point in this session was to plan the activities for the start of the inspection the following day, similar to the HMI/ OI phone call received under the current framework. The HMI was instructed that this session was not part of the inspection therefore discussions around the schools performance should not be discussed.

I found this session very useful, it was an opportunity for the inspector to get to know me and the logistics of the school. I used this as a chance to show her around, visit some classrooms and get a feel for the layout of the school. I generally felt this was an improvement on the current ‘phone call’ approach but I have my concerns around availability of the Headteacher at short notice. The current proposal is that the school would receive the notification phone call at 10am and the lead HMI/ OI would arrive after 12.30pm. I would anticipate (with good reason) that Heads of schools in the ‘Ofsted window’ would restrict their travel, attend less off site CPD/ networking and therefore reduce collaboration and school to school support. This would obviously have a negative impact on school development. 

A couple of additional points to note:

1.    The meeting was carried out ‘school and data cold’ meaning the HMI had not looked at documentation regarding the school (this included IDSR and school website) and therefore the initial timetabling was based on the my SDP and what I shared about the strengths and weaknesses of the school. This felt like an instant test of my leadership – did I know the school and was I confident that what I shared would be evident during Day 2 and Day 3.
2. It was time to plan roughly the course of the first inspection day so having teacher timetables at hand was very important
3. I gathered the information below before the initial meeting. I would recommend this to ensure a smooth start to the first inspection day.

Day 2 and Day 3 Inspection activities

As I explained earlier I will reflect on the areas of the framework that were different to my previous experience. The reflections below are not a full representation of the two days.

Four, Five or Six subject areas to investigate

Ofsted stated that during a section 5 inspection that 4 to 6 subjects should be explored at what was referred to as a ‘deep dive’ in a primary school. In a school primary schools this is more likey to always be four. These were selected based on the SDP and conversation during the initial meeting. One of these subjects had to be ‘reading’ (as instructed by Ofsted HQ) and the other three subjects were selected through discussion. For my school we looked at reading, maths (SDP focus), history and science.

Culture and behaviour are key!

This was refreshing and allowed time for the school to demonstrate the culture of the school and how the school operates to achieve a strong and purposeful culture. 

1. 

I think Ofsted proposal to look at the school culture and the impact it has on behaviour (both the extreme/ unacceptable behaviour but also ‘behaviour for learning’, and how a school might encourage resilience and aspirations, for example) is a game changer. Schools that drill children for results or support children’s well being and rounded development as an afterthought to data are in trouble.

During the pilot I had lots of discussion with the team about our values and the impact it has on the children and staff, this was followed by a number of inspection activities to understand this more and triangulate my comments.

1. Pupil and staff interview – children were asked about their experience in school and how the school supported their development. Staff were asked similar questions.
2. Observations – I felt that a lot conclusions were made from the observations the team made outside of the classroom – in the corridors, dinner hall and assemblies.
3. SMSC walk – one of the last activities was a walk of the school with a cross section of children. These were selected from previous inspection activities and from vulnerable groups. The objective of this walk was simple – what are the children most proud of in the school and they took the HMI to show them?
4. That typical school day in the life of child X – this was a very interesting activity. The HMI selected a child (in my case a child with an EHCP plan but could be a child from a vulnerable group) and spent a morning ‘tracking’ the child. Looking at documentation (could include EHCP, IEP, provision mapping), Observe the child (in assembly, lessons, playground), Interviewed the child about what was seen, and invited the child into other inspection tasks (e.g. SMSC walk). This was to understand what a typical day was like for this children.
5.  Behaviour and attitudes - Inspectors looking for a culture of positive attitudes, commitment, resilience and children that take pride in their work. This was mainly from books, interviews, observations around school and would have included surveys (if they were being carried out)

Everyone involved!

Throughout the two days all members of staff (particularly staff holding Senior, Middle or Subject Leadership responsibility) were involved in inspection activities to understand the culture of the school and the four subjects being explored.

All work was based mainly around intent, implementation and impact and from my experience during the pilot I would summarise these as follows:

Intent – curriculum and aspirations for the children (coverage, content, structure, sequence)

Implementation – How staff do their jobs and how learners support them – conclusion were drawn mainly from interviews with leaders, teachers, pupil voice, books, and long term planning (we offered this to the team and was not expected/ asked for).

Impact – learners developing detailed knowledge and skills across the curriculum and achieve well. 

To draw conclusion about the ‘Quality of Education’ (new section of the framework – see diagram at the top of the blog) the following inspections activities were completed across the school:

• Interviews with leaders (SLT, Middle/ Subject)
•  Observations in lessons and around school
• Pupil voice through pupil interviews, general discussion in lessons and around school
• Books (along side pupils, with leaders and without)
• Teacher interviews (see question section below)
• Paperwork – mainly used to support he understand of the school’s approach to SEND and Pupil Premium 

Leadership – every level!

One of the most significant changes I experience was the importance of all leadership levels during the inspection. The work done alongside them was key to the conclusions draw. At this stage its important to recognise that this doesn’t mean all leaders are performing at the level of senior leadership. All good schools are building leadership and every leader is on a ‘journey’, there was no expectation that middle leaders knew all the answers or were all driving their areas with the same backing, resource and time as main objectives on the school development plan. I implore you not to panic and heap additional pressures on your middle leaders. Develop leadership carefully with the long term goals in the forefront of your mind.

Interviews and conversation with leadership was key, common threads were evident on these conversations, including questions aimed to understanding the following:

•        Intent, implementation and impact (use of prior learning, rationale behind approach, what is next?, what is the purpose?)

•        Aims trying to be achieved through the subject/ areas

•        If your approach was perfect what would it look like?

•        When you implemented ‘X’ what were the risks you had to consider?

•        Sequence through year groups of knowledge and skills (how are these taught together?)

•        Leaders asked to talk through this children’s learning journey – what was the typical learning experience like for child X in subject Y?

•        How were knowledge and skills built on over time – where do staff begin and how long is spent on each area? (Curriculum mapping was a useful tool for these discussions)

•        How does the learning stick and how is it retained by the children? How do you support children to do this?

•        What will be seen as we ‘walk the school’? What will be in books, on walls etc? What will children say about your subject?

•        How do you consolidate learning over time?

The feedback from my leaders was that the HMIs listened and probed thinking. Questions were based on leadership decisions made, the rationale of these and why the curriculum was designed in this way. How did they know it’s effective and children are progressing?

Interviews were challenging but not at any point an attempt to catch leaders out. The HMIs were trying to understand the leaders thinking and rationale for their subject – have risks and implementation been considered carefully?

Data or lack of data… a marathon not a sprint! 

Data was not used (internal or published) during the Day 1 planning meeting and was hardly touched on during the rest of the pilot.

Internal data was not asked for at any point. The only question regarding internal tracking was made in relation to teacher workload during a teacher group interview. My teachers mentioned the data tracking system and the HMI followed up with a question regarding the use of this data and the balance between impact on teaching and learning and workload.

Published data was referred to twice in reference to what had already been observed and was more of a ‘I can see reading is your strongest area and the IDSR data would support that’.

The removal of a ‘data discussion’ and the not using data throughout the inspection was very different to previous experiences. This approach was positive and felt more like a marathon than a sprint. Without the data setting the direction I felt the inspection team took longer to get to know my school but by the end of the two days knew my school better and at more depth. 

Not new but don’t forget…

•  Safeguarding in depth – the schools approach and culture of safeguarding was an important focus (as it should  be). The culture of safeguarding outweighs fancy polices and paperwork.
• Observation will not be ‘random’ and will be based on a focus or trial
•  No grading of lessons or teachers – grades given to the school will be based on the typical education the children receives

My ‘take always’ from the pilot

I am a true believer that school shouldn’t be ‘preparing’ for an Ofsted inspection and taking action in the best interests of the children is all you need to do to ensure an effective school and therefore a successful Ofsted inspection. Below are some points to reflect on…

•        Culture is key - be clear about what this looks like, what you have developed, the impact the culture has on learning and areas you are still developing and how you are doing this

•        Without the right behaviour learning can’t be effective. Focus on this and underpin your approaches with key values that staff and children will believe in

•        There is nothing wrong with a developing leader – please don’t destroy the work life balance trying to bring all middle leaders rapidly up to senior leader level. Develop and nurture these professional and see them as senior leaders of the future and allow them to develop at a steady rate with the support they require

•        If you are running a ‘sausage factory’ and drilling children for results, you will be in trouble!

•        Now more than ever strong leadership is required to balance the curriculum development and manage the workload this might have on teachers. Get this balance wrong or rush developments in response to the new framework will just end in disaster

•        Leaders need to have a strong understanding of children’s ‘learning journey’ – what does a typical experience feel like for a child in a particular subject or year group? How can this be better?

•        No more internal data - the only reference made to internal tracking was when teachers were asked about the impact of this practise on their workload and the balance it had on impact of their teaching. This is a ‘game changer’!

•        Retention of teaching and learning – this was key line of investigation. Asking the children what they have learnt and testing how it has been retained. Has the learning stuck?

In conclusion

I was pleasantly pleased with the pilot and believe it’s the right direction of travel.

I was able to feedback directly to Ofsted after the pilot and included these key points in my reflections:

•        Possible negative impact on middle leader’s workload if clear messages aren’t made by Ofsted. This could be a significant and a damaging ‘unintended consequence’ of the new framework

•        Encouraged and pleased by the focus on a wider curriculum

•        Encouraged by the removing the data focus – I think through the wider activities the team new my school better by the end of day 2 than they would have with the ‘smoke screen’ of data

•        Positive about the face to face prep but questions regarding the impact of Headteacher availability and how this might restrict ‘school to school’ support and CPD

•        Impressed by the triangulation approaches, in particular, teachers contextualising their teaching to the inspectors and the use of pupil voice 

That’s it… any questions just tweet! 

Tweet