Common Inspection Framework - Essay Example

An Investigation into the common inspection framework and its impact on colleges. Is the framework an asset or a hindrance within education? Introduction: This essay deals within an examination of the Common Inspection Framework and its significance for a further education college. For the purpose of the discussion, I will identify key themes in and influences of the policy on education and will further critically assess the impact of the policy on professional practice within the academic setting. The common inspection framework is first described and introduced in some detail and then the impact of the framework on colleges and other higher educational settings is also discussed. The policy and its establishment, the connections of the policy with college education and the brief literature review that should be aimed during the search process for this article are discussed in the introductory stage of the analysis. The policy is then described and the changes made to date as well as the policy as it now stands are considered in the initial part of the discussion showing how the policy differs at present from its original version. The differences within the policy as seen in its earlier version and present version are studied to provide a better understanding of the meaning and influence of all aspects of the policy within education. The next part of the article involves discussion in which evaluation and analysis is done to show whether the policy and framework is working within colleges, whether it has a functional value, whether there is any further room for diversity and change and whether the inspection framework is too rigid or too prescriptive. The results or consequences of using such a framework within educational settings are also discussed to show whether the colleges have changed or improved their standards of teaching in any way after the introduction of the framework. It is also worth discussing the advantages and disadvantages of introducing such inspection frameworks in colleges and whether teachers in colleges feel threatened by such frameworks and rigid inspection patterns and monitoring systems. It is essential to understand whether such inspection systems have to be more flexible and less rigid so that both teachers and students agree with its protocols and standards more readily. In conclusion and summary I will suggest how this framework has helped improve or consolidate standards within the educational system and what other features could be incorporated within the framework for future improvement of educational standards. In the process I will discuss whether the framework is essentially a hindrance or is an asset to the educational system. Policy- Common Inspection Framework: The Common Inspection Framework has been introduced by the government and department of education to check and improve the quality and standards of education and to provide insights on the educational system in matters related to training and financial resources. Inspection of educational system helps to understand how the system is working and is almost essential for providing regular appraisals of workings and functioning of the system. According to the Common Inspection Framework, the main purposes of inspection are to: (from Common Inspection Framework, ALI and Ofsted, 2001) • give an independent public account of the quality of education and training, the standards achieved and the efficiency with which resources are managed • help bring about improvement by identifying strengths and weaknesses and highlighting good practice • keep the Secretary of State, the Learning and Skills Council for England and the Employment Service informed about the quality and standards of education and training • promote a culture of self-assessment among providers, leading to continuous improvement or maintenance of very high quality and standards. (from Common Inspection Framework, ALI and Ofsted, 2001) The three main purposes of inspection are thus to give an account of the quality of education followed, to identify strengths and weaknesses of educational systems and show room for improvement, and to promote self assessment and higher standards within the educational settings. Inspection seem to be generally associated with the results of what has been evaluated and how the findings are presented and also hw inspections are carried out. The key questions delineated by the Common Inspection Framework are the following (from Common Inspection Framework, ALI and Ofsted, 2001) 1. How well do learners achieve? 2. How effective are teaching, training and learning? 3. How are achievement and learning affected by resources? 4. How effective are the assessment and monitoring of learners’ progress? 5. How well do the programmes and courses meet the needs and interests of learners? 6. How well are learners guided and supported? 7. How effective are leadership and management in raising achievement and supporting all learners? The Common Inspection Framework details the process and quality of inspection as well as the conduct of the inspectors and lays down the following principles • inspectors have to be well prepared for the inspections that they undertake • before the inspection, providers or people working within educational settings are given instructions on the inspection process so that the process and their involvement in it are fully understood • the inspection is usually conducted in a way that engages the staff members of the educational establishment, and keeps them informed of emerging issues and findings within the academia setting. (from Common Inspection Framework, ALI and Ofsted, 2001) Discussion and Analysis: Inspection in itself is a process from which a lot of issues related to management and assessment could be learnt. The Common Inspection Framework helps in evaluating how efficient or effective the provisions and related services are in meeting all of learner’s needs and also suggests the steps that have to be taken to improve the learning provisions provided. Jackson and Wallis (2006) suggest that the inspection framework and practice has been a key mechanism that ensures accountability to the government and public and is also a tool for improving standards of education. The inspection of education is thus justifiable by the fact that it increases accountability and improvement and any work based learning could be monitored and analysed with the aid of regular or periodic inspection. The definition or meaning of improvement within education or any learning setting does not seem to be fixed and it is generally believed that any improvement or significant change would take its time and Jackson and Wallis (2006) emphasize on inspection systems that tend to meet with resistance but go through phases of conformity and commitment gradually but not without the challenges. Reid (2005) discussed the procedures laid out by Ofsted and in his article compares the management of school issues in primary and secondary schools with that of out of school and local education authorities. The inspection systems usually judge schools and local education authorities according to strict criteria such as rates of attendance, national norms and targets of educational achievement and Ofsted criteria. The out of school providers are however not judged by such strict criteria and even if they have attendance difficulties, they may not be judged harshly. Reid (2005) presents the reasons for which Ofsted inspectors make positive or negative judgements on schools or LEAs and their performances. Ofsted’s methods on inspection seem to be strictly based on the Common Inspection Framework followed and the focus is not just on providing quality and improving standards but also improving learner skills and achievements on an overall basis. Ofsted’s methodology and criteria seem to be essential in providing insights on the educational systems and the criteria followed for improvement. Thus during any inspection process the staff of the setting that is to be inspected will be appraised and they will remain prepared to answer any questions on the status of education or quality of learning in the institute. Along with the inspectors the staff members of educational institutes tend to remain actively involved in changes within the educational settings and are encouraged to keep themselves informed of all latest issues in education. Whether Ofsted inspections make any difference to the actual achievements of the students have to be seen and studied. Shaw et al (2003) takes up this question for consideration to suggest that although the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) aims to improve school performance through inspection, considerable research may be necessary to understand the direct impact of such inspection on schools. Shaw et al write that a government indicator of any secondary school’s performance would be students’ success in examinations and examination results of Ofsted inspected schools were considered for the study. The findings indicated that inspection was associated with slight improvements in achievement although for comprehensive and non selective schools, inspection did not improve examination achievements. Thus school curriculum and overall achievement improvement could be possible in certain cases and Ofsted inspections help to improve achievements and set standards of quality across schools and educational institutes. Considering the implementation of the framework, the Framework has been revised for second cycle of post-16 inspections, which began on 1 April 2005 and there have been some changes in the inspection process since the beginning of April, 2005 (ALI, 2006). The Adult Learning Inspectorate states that the purpose of any inspection is not just to identify strengths and weakness of educational services but also report to the Secretary of State and the funding bodies about the quality and standards of education that are being followed. Inspection is thus a direct means of assessment and monitoring used by the government and funding bodies and accordingly schools and institutes are helped, warned or assessed and their achievements are noted. The planning of the inspection process include notification sent to the schools and staff that would be inspected, providers are asked to give data on the number of learners and the methods used for their learning, pre inspection resource analysis or what the schools already have and what they should be achieving with the resources available, and previous inspection reports are also used. Inspections are then planned and the learning programs followed are also taken into consideration. The inspection is then organised and usually takes around 3-4 days. In the process of the inspection, the inspectors provide overall judgment of the provisions of the setting and suggest how these provisions could be improved in accordance with expected standards of Ofsted. Quality monitoring visits are also sometimes done after inspection and after a development plan is in place to see how the inspection has improved conditions within any educational setting and quality monitoring visits are usually done when any inspection process has been judged satisfactory, when an emergency action plan has been introduced after the re-inspection and when providers have gone through major changes after the inspection process. Quality monitoring visits are thus a follow up of inspection visits and the inspection process in general and are used to assess development plans after inspection process has provided some recommendations to the providers. Inspectors are expected to be skilled in management and leadership and they visit learning institutes and assess learning skills, training facilities, and examine learners’ progress, achievements and also checks on quality assurance. The ALI has laid down a range of activities that the inspectors can observe during the process of inspection and these include reviews of learners’ progress staff and management meetings on-the-job training assessments recruitment induction. off-the-job training, for example at subcontractors quality improvement activities Thus from the process of recruitment to the process of induction, quality management and changes in curriculum or management activities could all be observed by the inspectors and proper assessment could be made of every stage of the running of the institution. At this point some recent changes in the inspection process could be highlighted and these changes were brought about through the right touch inspection in 2005. The changes in the inspection process since April 2005 are the following: (ALI, 2006) A pre inspection resource analysis is done to find out the time that inspectors need for the inspection process A greater focus is now given on self-assessment and checking aspects of the self-assessment report so providers could assess their own progress and this aids in answering all the seven key questions of the Common Inspection Framework There is a greater emphasis on assessment of providers’ ability to improve More flexibility is now in place on when inspection activities should take place Before the inspection process, more time is given to providers with a poor track record, so that they can appraise their performance and provide answers to the inspectors’ questions and less time is given to those that have performed well in the past. (ALI, 2006). The ALI claims that these new changes have helped in reducing disruption and in making the inspection process more organised. The changes also help in improving efficiency by using resources that have the greatest benefits. Chapman (2002) investigated on how teachers perceived the inspection process used by Ofsted and used teachers views of the Ofsted’s inspection process as a mechanism for improving secondary schools which are acing challenging contexts and situations. Chapman asked how the teachers perceive the inspection process, the extent to which Ofsted inspection generates changes in teaching and non teaching practices in schools, and whether Ofsted’s inspection identifies similar problems as already perceived by school authorities internally which means whether the external and internal monitoring of schools essentially yield similar or compatible results? Summary and Conclusion: The Common Inspection Framework helps in providing the basic overall judgment of any educational or institutional system. Although it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the monitoring provisions and the improvements suggested after the strengths and weaknesses of any educational setting have been identified. Thus the whole of monitoring, assessment and inspection exercise seem to be based on judgment of inspectors and it would be necessary to know what shapes this judgement. Judgements in these matters seem to be based on evidence and include observation of learning, learner’s work, other documentary evidence, and data or observations obtained during training and learning exercises, as well as in the process of verifications, and interviews with staff and learners could also provide significant insights on the process of educational achievements and the emphasis on quality in education. The change process in school and Ofsted’s inspection seem to have complicated dynamics and there are no straightforward answers as to whether Ofsted’s inspection definitely brings in positive or beneficial results for these schools. In order to understand whether the introduction of the framework has brought about any changes to the educational system and what are the effects or the impact of the Common Inspection Framework on educational setting, the recent changes would be important that seem to focus on the providers’ inherent ability to improve rather than on improvements that are already in place. Providers and especially poorly recognised schools are given the chance to improve and the inspection system is increasingly being based on an encouraging rather than a warning model. The focus is on rewards and achievements rather than any kind of punishment or warning given to such schools. Teachers would generally perceive the inspection process as helpful for self assessment although to understand the real value of this process, it would be necessary to monitor the changes in school achievements and improvements in quality of education across schools over the next few years when the changes made to the inspection process would become more obvious and would begin to show its results. Researchers have considered the inspection process to be detrimental in certain ways as it may set a factor in competitiveness and bring in feelings of underachievement, although the general advantages of inspection including self assessment and improved achievements along with information sharing among staff and monitoring to inform the government and funding bodies in general, would suggest that the advantages of inspection tend to outweigh the disadvantages if any. Bibliography Convergence in Higher Education: The Strange Case of "Entrepreneurialism" Institutional Management in Higher Education, Higher Education Management and Policy, Volume 17, Number 3, December 2005, pp. 43-58(16) Bathmaker, Ann-Marie.2000 Standardising teaching: the introduction of the national standards for teaching and supporting learning in further education in England and Wales Journal of In-service Education, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 9-23(15) Beardsworth, Roy; Lee, Malcolm.2004, Developing training schools: an evaluation of the initiative Journal of In-service Education, Volume 30, Number 3, pp. 361-370(10) Brookes, Winston. 2005, The Graduate Teacher Programme in England: mentor training, quality assurance and the findings of inspection Journal of In-service Education, Volume 31, Number 1, March pp. 43-62(20) Chapman C. 2002, Ofsted and School Improvement: teachers' perceptions of the inspection process in schools facing challenging circumstances School Leadership and Management, Volume 22, Number 3, 1 October pp. 257-272(16) Chapman C. 2001, Changing Classrooms Through Inspection School Leadership and Management, Volume 21, Number 1, 1 February pp. 59-73(15) Gleeson, Denis; Davies, Jenifer; Wheeler, Eunice. 2005, On the making and taking of professionalism in the further education workplace British Journal of Sociology of Education, Volume 26, Number 4, September pp. 445-460(16) Jackson, Ann; Wallis, John 2006, No pain, no gain? Learning from inspection Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Volume 11, Number 3, October pp. 251-266(16) Matthews P.; Holmes J.R.; Vickers P.; Corporaal B. 1998 Aspects of the Reliability and Validity of School Inspection Judgements of Teaching Quality Educational Research and Evaluation, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 167-188(22) McGurk, Mark.2005 Inspection and Recognition Committee Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, Volume 87, Number 10, pp. 354-354(1) Reid, Ken. 2005, A Comparison between Inspection Reports on the Management of School Attendance Throughout the Education Service Pastoral Care in Education, Volume 23, Number 4, December pp. 31-41(11) Reid, Ken. 2006 An evaluation of inspection reports on primary school attendance Educational Research, Volume 48, Number 3, pp. 267-286(20) Ritchie, Ron. 2002. School improvement in the context of a primary school in special measures Teacher Development, Volume 6, Number 3, October pp. 329-346(18) SHAW I.; NEWTON D.P.; AITKIN M.; DARNELL R. 2003 Do OFSTED Inspections of Secondary Schools Make a Difference to GCSE Results? British Educational Research Journal, Volume 29, Number 1, pp. 63-75(13) Smith G. 2000 Research and Inspection: HMI and OFSTED, 1981-1996 - a commentary Oxford Review of Education, Volume 26, Numbers 3-4, pp. 333-352(20) Watson J. 2001 OFSTED's Spiritual Dimension: an analytical audit of inspection reports Cambridge Journal of Education, Volume 31, Number 2, pp. 205-219(15) Webs resources: ALI , Adult Learning Inspectorate, accessed 2006-12-05 www.ali.gov.uk http://www.ali.gov.uk/Inspection/ ALI, OfSted, 2001 The Common Inspection Framework, accessed 2006-12-05 ALI- Ofsted publication. Read More