Stakeholder feedback
A total of 1,177 responses were received. Respondents were asked a number of questions about their connection to the education sector and, based on their answers, most were placed into one of five stakeholder groups:
| Stakeholder type | Number | % of stakeholder group respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Parent or carer and young people | 322 | 29% |
| Teacher or other staff | 386 | 34% |
| Senior leader or manager | 322 | 29% |
| Local/education authority officer | 38 | 3% |
| Other | 54 | 5% |
| Total | 1122 | 100% |
The ‘Parent or carer and young people’, ‘Teacher or other staff’ and ‘Senior leader or manager’ groups were of relatively equal size with smaller numbers in the ‘Local/education authority officer’ and ‘Other’ groups. The consultation paper noted that older children and young people might prefer to complete the stakeholder questionnaire and for those that did, their views have been captured here.
The 55 organisation respondents were placed into one of seven groups: ‘Local authority’, n=15; ‘Public body’, n=5; ‘Sector representative body or membership organisation’, n=9; ‘Think tank, consultancy or academia’, n=3; ‘Third sector, campaign group or support provider’, n=12, ‘Trade union’, n=3; and ‘Other’, n=8.
People involved in inspection
HM Inspectors lead on inspections, but teams can also include associate assessors (experienced school leaders, middle leaders or local authority staff) or lay members.
There was a clear consensus that having associate assessors in inspection teams strengthens inspections, but a more mixed position when it came to whether lay members should be part of inspection teams. Although respondents across all the stakeholder groups were more likely to agree strongly or agree, for both the ‘Senior leaders or managers’ and particularly the ‘Teachers or other staff’ groups, the number of respondents disagreeing or disagreeing strongly was relatively high.
There was also a clear consensus that senior leaders being invited to join parts of the inspection process would strengthen inspections. ‘Senior leaders or managers’ and ‘Local/education authority officers’ were particularly likely to see benefits in this approach.
Gathering views of key groups
Inspectors already gather the views of children and young people and school staff through questionnaires, focus groups, and direct conversations. They gather the views of parents and carers through questionnaires, focus groups and meeting the Chair of the Parent Council. Respondents were asked whether they thought each of these groups should have increased opportunities to share their views during inspection.
There were strong levels of support for children and young people and school staff having increased opportunities to share their views. However, the position was less clear with regard to parents or carers, with those in the ‘Parents or carers and young people’ group more likely to think they should have increased opportunities to share their views than those in the remaining four stakeholder groups. Some of the further comments suggested that current opportunities are sufficient and/or of high quality.
The importance of ensuring that approaches are tailored or adaptable to the particular needs of children and young people was highlighted, including with a (continuing) focus on age-appropriate options and communication styles, and opportunities for natural, low-pressure engagement with inspection teams. There were also references to all children and young people having an opportunity to be involved in sharing their views, including those with additional support needs.
Those who thought that school staff should have increased opportunities to share their views raised some of the same issues that had been highlighted in relation to children and young people. Points made included that staff should feel listened to and able to express their views freely; this was sometimes connected to a view that any interaction should be private, and possibly anonymised. There was also reference to an ‘open door’ policy so that staff can readily engage with the inspection team.
The importance of parents or carers having their voice heard was also highlighted, although there were suggestions that current arrangements work well. However, there were also concerns that some parents may be hesitant or find it difficult to engage with school inspections. It was suggested that there needs to be a review of the approaches used to ensure opportunities are as accessible as possible, and that a wide range of parents have the opportunity to contribute when their children’s school is being inspected.
Inspection frequency and selection
Currently, there is no fixed cycle for inspections. HM Inspectors carry out around 250 inspections each year, using a national sampling approach. Schools can also be selected for inspection as a result of risk. This means that, on average, a primary, secondary or special school may be inspected once every 10 years, although some schools may wait longer.
Views about whether the current sampling model should continue were mixed. ‘Teachers or other staff’ and ‘Senior leaders or managers’ were more likely to agree strongly or agree (44% and 43% respectively), than those in the other stakeholder groups. A majority (51%) of ‘Parents or carers and young people’ disagreed or disagreed strongly that the current sampling model should continue. Going forward, respondents were most likely to favour an approach that combines a clear cycle for all schools, with additional inspection based on risk.
Views were also mixed in relation to how often each school should be inspected. ‘Parents or carers and young people’, ‘Teachers or other staff’ and ‘Local/education authority officers’ were most likely to favour inspections being carried out at least once every 5 years. ‘Senior leaders or managers’ were the only stakeholder group in which respondents were more likely to favour inspections being at least once every 10 years. There was very limited support for an approach based on inspecting only when there is a concern.
Use of grades in inspection
HM Inspectors currently use a six-point grading scale to provide a high-level summary of how well a school is performing in key areas. There was little in the way of clear consensus around whether using grades helps provide a clear overview of how well a school is doing or helps with understanding about what needs to improve. However, there was a consensus that grades can oversimplify what is happening in a school, with ‘Senior leaders or managers’ and ‘Teachers or other staff’ particularly likely to think this can be the case.
When it came to whether school inspections should continue to use grades to summarise how well a school is performing, the general consensus tended to be not. ‘Senior leaders or managers’ were particularly likely to think that they should not continue to be used. ‘Parents or carers and young people’ were the only stakeholder group in which more respondents thought grades should continue to be used to summarise how well a school is performing than not. In terms of possible alternatives to the current approach, there was a slight preference for using a shorter grading scale if grades do continue to be used.
Notification of inspection and pre-inspection
Currently, a school is given two-and-a-half weeks’ notice of an inspection. The consultation sought views on whether the current notification period is appropriate. There was no clear consensus around any one of the three notice periods suggested, with ‘Parents or carers and young people’ and ‘Local/education authority officers’ most likely to favour a school being given about 2 days’ notice and ‘Teachers and other staff’ and particularly ‘Senior leaders or managers’ most likely to prefer the 3 to 4 weeks’ notice option.
The questionnaire also sought views on what happens in the time before an inspection takes place. Across all the stakeholder groups, most or a majority agreed strongly or agreed that a self-evaluation summary helps make sure that inspection starts with the school’s own view of its strengths and development areas. A majority also thought it was important to gather the views of ‘children and young people’, ‘school staff, including support staff’, ‘parents and carers’ and ‘organisations and partners who work with the school’.
Design and content of a school inspection framework
The questionnaire explained that HM Inspectors use a framework, How Good Is Our School? (4th edition), to ensure a consistent approach to evaluating the quality of education in schools, including primary, secondary, and special schools. How Good Is Our School? has not been updated since it was launched in 2015. The consultation sought views on the format, purpose and content of a new school inspection framework.
While there was very limited support for having one framework for all schools, opinion varied in relation to whether there should be one framework with guidance that can be adapted for each different type of school, or different frameworks for different types of school, such as primary, secondary, and special schools. ‘Local/education authority officers’ and ‘Senior leaders or managers’ were more likely to favour having one framework for all schools with guidance that can be adapted for each different type of school; levels of support for this option stood at 63% and 45% respectively. ‘Teachers or other staff’ and ‘Parents or carers and young people’ tended to prefer different frameworks for different types of school, with levels of support at 58% and 54% respectively.
Respondents were also asked about the importance of 25 different areas being included in an inspection framework. All areas were seen as very important or important by the majority of respondents. This was particularly the case for ‘relationships and behaviour’, ‘safeguarding and promoting welfare’ and ‘learning, teaching and assessment’, all three of which were seen as important by 99% of respondents.
Reporting on the outcome of inspections
HMIE is reviewing how inspection findings are reported and shared following school inspections. Overall, respondents had a clear preference for having two inspection reports – one with detailed information for schools and local authorities/proprietors of independent schools, and a shorter, easy-to-understand version for parents and carers. However, there was some support for a single inspection report from those in the ‘Parent or carer and young people’ stakeholder group, with around 1 in 3 preferring this option.
In relation to effective ways of sharing inspection findings with children and young people, the most frequently made suggestions were: in person presentations or meetings, with an opportunity to discuss and share views on the findings; a written report/feedback document; and a video/digital message, with references to the use of social media (via a podcast, using TikTok or Instagram-style reels etc.)
The importance of any approach being child-friendly and age-appropriate was also highlighted, and it was also noted that, where appropriate, the findings should be tailored to meet children’s particular needs.
Respondents were most likely to select a ‘clear summary of strengths and areas for development’ as one of the features of an inspection report that matter most, followed by ‘clear explanation of what the school/local authority/proprietor of independent schools is expected to do next’ and ‘recommendations for improvement’.
Inspecting nursery classes
Some schools include nursery classes. These are inspected using the new, separate Quality Improvement Framework for the early learning and childcare sector developed by HM Inspectors and the Care Inspectorate. This consultation exercise did not cover a new joint framework or inspection arrangements but did seek views specifically on whether nursery classes should continue to receive separate grades and summary of findings when included in a school inspection.
Overall, respondents tended to agree that, when a nursery class is included in a school inspection, its evaluation should be reported separately from the rest of the school. ‘Local authority/education officers’ were particularly likely to agree strongly agree or agree with the approach, with ‘Senior leaders or managers’ less likely to agree strongly or agree.
Inspection follow-up
Across all the stakeholder groups, respondents were most likely to think that all schools should receive some form of follow-up after an inspection. ‘Parents or carers and young people’ were particularly likely to favour this approach.