Education inspection framework 2019: inspecting the substance of education
Di Chilvers – Response to the consultation document
5th April 2019
We propose the introduction of a new ‘quality of education’ judgement built around our working definition of the curriculum. It will focus on a provider’s educational intent, implementation and impact. Inspectors look at teaching, assessment, attainment and progress under the current inspection framework, and they will continue to do so, but these considerations will contribute, viewed in the context of the provider’s curriculum, to a single quality of education judgement. In short, we propose to take a holistic approach to considering the quality of education rather than artificially separating the leadership of the curriculum from teaching, and separating teaching and the use of assessment from the impact this has on the outcomes that learners achieve. This will de-intensify the inspection focus on performance data and place more emphasis on the substance of education and what matters most to learners and practitioners.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a ‘quality of education’ judgement?
A focus on the Quality of Education (pedagogy and practice) is very welcome - it shifts the view from measurement and data to the quality of the curriculum - what is experienced and learned by the child
Quality is about many things, one of which is the curriculum but it also includes the quality of those who are creating the curriculum. Creating a curriculum which is fit for purpose in the EYFS needs to be undertaken by professionally trained experts in the field (0-7 yrs) who are highly experienced
We already have a Quality Curriculum in the Early Years Foundation Stage which includes the following elements;
A Unique Child + Positive Relationships + Enabling Environments = Learning and Development (EYFS Overarching Themes and Principles, EYFS Statutory Framework (2017. p.6). This forms the INTENT of the EYFS Curriculum.
The EYFS curriculum is different for young children (0-5+) because of the developmental trajectory they follow which means that HOW children learn (The Characteristics of Effective Learning) are the foundation from which they begin to learn and understand the knowledge of the Areas of Learning (programmes of education). It is not just a combination of knowledge and skills it also includes dispositions as a developing learner.
This also means that IMPLEMENTATION is through a play based approach as described in Ofsted’s Balancing Play Thematic Review and also the Ofsted Definition of Teaching.
Both inspection documents for the EYFS should reflect this
Ofsted have always said that they will not tell settings/schools how to teach or what to teach (the EYFS and the National Curriculum as statutory duties do this). E.g. “We are not prescribing what schools should do - but what the leadership intends for the curriculum and what you want to achieve. It’s about the whole breadth of the curriculum not just maths and English” (Lee Owston 10.1.18. The problem is that Ofsted are doing this very thing through the following;
IMPACT/ACHIEVEMENT should be undertaken through observation of children's embedded learning (2.1 EYFS Statutory Duty). The quality of the curriculum and teaching is evident when children are observed in their child-led play as they bring together dispositions, skills and knowledge in ways of their own which show they have truly understood what has been taught
The following statement does not describe how young children learn “Progress, therefore, means knowing more (including knowing how to do more) and remembering more” there is much more to learning than this. UNDERSTANDING is essential and learning in a context which is familiar, first hand and as concrete as possible supports progress. Knowledge is a part of this - in the context - but it needs to be situated in the child's context and taught in appropriate ways for their developmental range 0-5 +
It is heartening to see that Ofsted recognises the different approaches to the curriculum BUT how will this be interpreted into practice by Ofsted Inspectors?
HOWEVER: The Ofsted Films e.g. Vocabulary and Reading and Early Reading are already showing a perceived view of the EYFS curriculum and giving determined messages about what should be taught and how it should be taught. Is this the remit of Ofsted? The message from Ofsted has always been ‘we will not tell you how to teach or what to teach’. Has this changed??
It does state in the consultation document that “We recognise and support the importance of providers’ freedom to choose their own curriculum approaches within the appropriate legal parameters" This includes the EYFS.
However – there are many mixed messages and inconsistencies in Ofsted’s role. On one hand Ofsted reiterate this ‘neutrality’ in their presentations and documentation BUT the production of a series of films on Utube; conferences and training which have pushed phonics, vocabulary, reading and comprehension including supporting Read, Write Inc are giving strong messages about curriculum expectations and what should be taught. This is blurring the lines of Ofsted’s remit as an inspection and regulatory body which “reports directly to Parliament and is both independent and impartial”
The role of Ofsted needs clarifying with the introduction of the 2019 Framework so that there is a clear and transparent understanding across the sectors otherwise this will lead to a confused and distorted interpretation of the EYFS curriculum
Proposal 2
We propose to judge ‘personal development’ separately from ‘behaviour and attitudes’ to enhance the inspection focus on each and enable clearer reporting on both. This approach recognises the very different elements in focus. We believe that the behaviour and the attitudes learners of all ages bring to learning is best evaluated and judged separately from the provision made to promote learners’ wider personal development, character and resilience.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed separation of inspection judgements about learners’ personal development and learners’ behaviour and attitudes?
This may be an appropriate separation for older children but for younger children it is complicated; the reason being that behaviour and attitudes are all connected to personal, social and emotional development. Which is why I have selected strongly disagree
Referring to the EIF for Sections 49 and 50 in the EYFS there are some very confusing mixed messages in this section;
Whilst they could be described as behaviours they are NOT about behaviour in terms of rules, social norms or compliance which are very different. This is a misunderstanding of the C of EL which will have a huge impact on how they are currently understood and embedded into high quality practice e.g. the links with sustained shared thinking, mastery and mathematics
References to motivation, collaboration and self-regulation are linked to the C of EL but again are a much broader part of children’s development than just behaviour especially when it is described as ‘behaviour and conduct’, ‘developing a sense of right and wrong’ and ‘responding promptly to requests and instructions from practitioners’ (p.35)
Personal Development (p.36) is separated from social and emotional development which for young children is all connected.
The previous version of Personal development, behaviour and welfare is a much stronger, informed and developmentally appropriate descriptor – it also makes reference to children’s emotional development, well-being and welfare which is lacking in the revised version
We want to ensure that the education inspection framework 2019 judgements (see section above and para 131 in the EY handbook]) are appropriate for the range of early years settings.
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the judgements will work well for:
Referring back to my response to Proposal 1 – I am confused by the way Ofsted have interpreted the following;
The quality of education (educational programmes)
How do Ofsted’s proposals re the 7 Areas of Learning fit in light of the DfE’s proposals to reduce the educational programmes especially shapes, space and measures and technology? This will significantly narrow the curriculum not broaden it as Ofsted have stated is one of their key aims in the EIF
This needs to be much clearer and less confusing for everyone working in the EYFS – which is why I have had to select Strongly Disagree
Looking at the EYIF – Sections 49 and 50 I have the following comments and questions;
It is good to see that the definition of teaching remains (p.32, 33) though why does this have to be in the footer?? It is an important interpretation of teaching and also IMPLEMENTATION
Proposal 6
The recent Teacher Workload Advisory Group report[1] noted that ‘time associated with data collection and analysis… is most frequently cited as the most wasteful due to a lack of clarity amongst teachers as to its purpose’.
Ofsted is committed to ensuring that our inspection work does not create unnecessary work for teachers, and as such we propose that inspectors will not use schools’ internal performance data for current pupils as evidence during an inspection. This is because:
Inspectors will, however, ask schools to explain why they have decided to collect whatever assessment information they collect, what they are drawing from this information and how that informs their curriculum and teaching. We believe that this will help to reduce unnecessary workload for teachers; we do not believe that it will have a negative effect on our ability to judge effectively the quality of education in a school.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal not to look at non-statutory internal progress and attainment data and our reasons why?
The current Ofsted Inspection Framework for the EYFS (Section 49 & 50) is helpful in the way it focusses on professional dialogue to show children’s progress;
Quality of teaching and learning – gathering the ‘evidence’;
Mapping/Tracking progress is important as it shows the developmental journey of the child. This should be drawn from observations and other formative types of assessments e.g. paintings, drawing, writing, construction play etc. BUT not from tick lists via IPads or photocopied versions of Development Matters.
Teachers/practitioners should be able to tell the ‘child’s developmental story’ from their starting points and talk about it in an informed way; discussing their thinking and being clear about what child needs to support them in their next steps.
Changing the focus from assessment for accountability which has led to the current data driven, workload situation to Assessment for learning which looks at the quality of teaching and learning and how this impacts on children’s progress using professionally informed judgements.
Feedback from Head Teachers, teachers, practitioners etc about moving away from data driven paper work is positive and a relief however there was considerable scepticism about if this would actually happen, with ‘rogue’ Ofsted Inspectors wanting to see the data – in which case Heads said they would have to do it just in case!
A question: How will this changing view of data by Ofsted sit alongside the introduction of Baseline Assessment and changes to the ELGs and the EYFSP – which, if the proposal goes ahead, will become non-statutory??? Again there is a great confusion and mixed messages across the sector.
Di Chilvers
WatchMeGrow – 5th April 2019