As can be seen in Table 3.5 below, the vast majority of survey respondents (84 per cent) found the written report helpful, to some degree, in identifying areas for school improvement. However, 15 per cent believed that it was not at all helpful.
Table 3.5 Extent to which the written report was helpful in identifying areas for improvement in the school
%
Very helpful 33
Fairly helpful 51
Not at all helpful 15
No response 1
N = 1597
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 1580 respondents answered this question
Source: NFER evaluation of the impact of Section 5 Inspection School Survey 2006
Table 3.6 below indicates that the majority of survey respondents reported that the inspection teams accurately identified the schools’ strengths (79 per cent) and weaknesses (71 per cent). Only a small minority (five per cent) believed that the teams had not identified strengths or weaknesses accurately.
Table 3.6 Incidence of the inspection team identifying the school’s strengths and weaknesses accurately
Strengths % Weaknesses % Yes 79 71 No 5 5 Partly 16 22 No response 0 2 N = 1597
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
1592 respondents answered the ‘strengths’ question and 1568 answered the ‘weaknesses’ question Source: NFER evaluation of the impact of Section 5 Inspection School Survey 2006
A minority of survey respondents (14 per cent) believed that the inspection teams detected extra strengths of which the schools were previously unaware, as can be seen in Table 3.7 below. The corresponding figure for previously unidentified weaknesses was seven per cent.
Table 3.7 Extent to which the inspection teams identified additional strengths and weaknesses
Additional strengths % Additional weaknesses % Yes 14 7 No 86 92 No response 0 1 N = 1597
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
1594 respondents answered the ‘strengths’ question and 1587 answered the ‘weaknesses’ question Source: NFER evaluation of the impact of Section 5 Inspection School Survey 2006
Over three-quarters of survey respondents (77 per cent) agreed that the s5 inspection process was more useful than the s10 inspection (see Table 3.8 below), though a fifth (20 per cent) disagreed, to some extent, with this view. Findings from the statistical modelling revealed that respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that the inspection helped to identify main priorities (57 per cent) were more likely to believe that the inspection had at least some impact on school improvement.
Survey respondents were also asked about the extent to which they agreed that the inspection report was superficial; 18 per cent agreed and a further four per cent strongly agreed, as can be seen in Table 3.8 below. However the majority (76 per cent) disagreed, to some extent, that the s5 inspection report was superficial.
Table 3.8 Different people have different views about the s5 inspections. Extent of agreement with the following areas.
Usefulness Strongly agree % Agree % Disagree % Strongly disagree % No response %
The s5 inspection process was more useful than the s10 inspection
27 50 16 4 3 The inspection helped to identify
main priorities 11 46 35 6 1
The inspection report was
superficial 4 18 56 20 2
N = 1597
Due to rounding, percentages may not always sum to 100
A total of 1592 respondents answered at least one item in this question
Source: NFER evaluation of the impact of Section 5 Inspection School Survey 2006
In accord with the survey findings, three-quarters of case-study schools believed that the inspection teams identified the schools’ strengths and
weaknesses accurately. One headteacher, for example, said: ‘Yes, generally they did. For example, they recognised the quality of the school ethos and that we had a broad and balanced curriculum. But they were critical of our paper record of assessment’. A senior manager in another school said: ‘It was surprising in the short time they were here how easily they identified the strengths and weaknesses. What I liked is that it was sold as an inspection where you could open yourselves up to show what you didn’t do very well, and were given ideas to improve. We admitted to issues and said what we were doing about it. It was a more honest approach’.
A minority of schools reported that the inspection team identified some new weaknesses, such as:
• insufficient work-related learning
• an inability to communicate multicultural awareness to children • the need for better communication with parents
• the need to evaluate interventions.
Interviewees in five case-study schools believed that the inspection teams had not correctly identified the school’s strengths and weaknesses. One headteacher of a PRU felt that they had been treated as a mainstream school, and therefore their strengths and weaknesses had not been considered carefully enough. Another headteacher believed standards to be too influential:
The inspectors did a very thorough evaluation of the PANDA and the SEF and that was reflected in the report – but it was all seen in the light of the standards. It’s a too linear model – your standards are satisfactory, so therefore your teaching and learning is satisfactory, your leadership is satisfactory, your pastoral is satisfactory and I just find that framework is so naïve.
The remaining three schools felt that the inspectors had not engaged with the strengths and weaknesses because the inspection was ‘a quick snapshot’, that ‘it was too generalised’ and ‘not real’. One headteacher felt that the inspection team had not ‘adequately referenced the SEF’, which he believed ‘better highlighted the successes of several areas including PE and ICT which were not drawn out in the report’.