Are you reading this to find out about Beaufort’s Ofsted Inspection? For a subjective view of Surrey’s ongoing CA / JAR inspection process? From a party-political point of view, to see how any of it matters when it comes to winning votes? Or perhaps with a broader interest in how some social institutions are increasing their ’self-awareness’ and even ’self-control’?

This posting is long, but I’ve split it up with descriptive headings so that you can fillet out the bits you want. If you stay with me through the whole thing, I hope putting the two inspections together will make sense, but it is complicated. I apologise to any expert bureaucrat out there for mistakes - this whole thing is a journey of discovery for me … 

Beaufort’s Third Ofsted

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Beaufort Community Primary School here in Goldsworth Park underwent its third-ever Ofsted on the 25th and 26th of March.

I have to declare an interest at the outset: I am Vice Chair of Governors, and have been a Governor at the school for more than ten years.

The result was uniformly ‘Satisfactory’ - which may not sound exciting, but for a school that has been undergoing considerable changes over the last few years was not unsatisfying. As our new Head says: ‘Onward and upward!’

The report is on the Ofsted website so that you can read it yourself on http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/index.cfm?fuseaction=summary&id=125118

The way the procedure has changed since last time around, when I was Chair of Governors, is remarkable. Instead of a team of five Inspectors descending on a school that had been preparing madly for weeks beforehand, we had just two Inspectors and The Telephone Call came two working days before the Inspectors arrived - though the Easter Bank Holiday let this become a crueller six actual days.

Preparation consisted of checking that all routinely required paperwork was in place - not a bad thing to have to check - and, through the whole of the last year and on-going from now on, having an up to date SEF.

The SEF is the Self Evaluation Form, which the school fills in as honestly and thoroughly as possible, analysing where the school is, what is being done, and giving itself grades. Just as the children are now asked to assess their own work, thus learning how to be self-critical and how to improve for themselves, so with Governing Body and Head.

The form is held on the Ofsted website and can be updated at any time until just before the Inspection, when it is locked. The Inspectors also have the statistics on the School’s SATS results, and can make comparisons with the performance of other schools both in Surrey and nationwide.

So when the Inspectors arrive, they are carrying out a ‘reality check’ - even if everything is not right with the school, is their understanding of the situation correct? If they start probing an area, they are looking for evidence. Airy assurances and good intentions will not do.

In our initial Ofsted Governors were not assessed, but in the second and in this most recent Ofsted we have been. Going with the Chair of Governors to talk to the Reporting Inspector felt a bit like being taken back to secondary school and being politely but determinedly carpeted by the Head. Definitely a directed chat, exploring certain lines, interested in assertions but even more in examples to back them.

Then it was over. Feedback given to Senior Management Team and Governors. Report published on Ofsted’s website. A letter written to the children themselves by the Reporting Inspector, saying they had enjoyed visiting the school and then giving a carefully phrased but full sumary of what was in the report.

There is no huge action plan to be drawn up after the Inspection. Inspection should now be what they call ‘embedded’, a process rather than a series of one-off events. The Head and Governors go on with the actions already identified in the SEF. In doing this, they’ll be helped by the SIP (School Improvement Partner). The SIP has taken on the cuddlier functions of the old HMI, acting as a ‘critical professional friend’ to the school, while Ofsted makes the hard judgements, when necessary. And they will be back.

CA  (Corporate Assessmanet) and JAR (Joint Area Review)

 -  Surrey Faces the Inspectors

This is Ofsted writ large, with bells and whistles. I can only tell you what I saw and heard - I am not an expert - and I can’t tell you all of that. For the Focus Group I was a part of the Inspector invoked the Chatham House Rule for meetings - you can use the information received, but not identify anyone, nor their affiliations. Apart from that, the guidance I have been given is that writing about process is fine; and there is also quite a lot of information in the public domain, because of wide publication to staff.

Making grades

The ‘Corporate Assessment’ is rather like a School’s Ofsted Inspection. Surrey’s last one was in 2002, when it scored 3 out of four. In February, County Council put in a self-assessment, supported by case studies and a number of other ‘key documents’. 

Instead of one visit by the Inspectors, there have been two: a week in February sussing out the situation, followed at the start of April by two weeks on ‘fieldwork’ with observations, visits, and focus groups set up following the first scoping visit.

There is some feedback to Surrey after that, but it remains confidential until the report is published on the 22nd of July - as it happens, the day of the last Full Council before the summer recess.

The Joint Area Review concentrateds on services for children and young people in Surrey, and looks wider than just the County Council. The process and timings match those of the CA precisely, with a self-assessment, casefiles, and key documents sent ahead and the same one week and then two-week visits, the second set up according to the Inspectors requests after the first visit. The final report again comes out on the 22nd of July.

There is a dentist-like element. It’s an uncomfortable proces in that the Inspectors will be looking specifically for areas of weakness to probe - but as with looking after your teeth, its best to be aware of weaknesses as soon as possible, and if nothing much is found you can congratulate yourself on being so healthy. 

The CA and the JAR then feed into the ‘Comprehensive Performance Assessment’, which happens once a year when the Audit Commission gives the Council a ’star’ rating, anywhere between 0 and 4, with 4 being the best. Surrey is currently rated a three-star authority, having been demoted from the 4-star achieved in 2005.

This all matters for staff, to recognise the good work being done and to identify where their efforts are not being used to the best, and for taxpayers, who can look to the Inspectors to give an expert, outsider’s view of whether they are getting the services they should, and whether these services are well-delivered.

In purely party political terms, this year’s CPA rating will be announced early in 2009, just in the lead-up to the County Council elections that Spring. All sides will be looking to use the result, intended to be as objective and fair as possible, in the most partisanly persuasive way they can in evidence for or against the wonderfulness / dreadfulness of the unarguably and overwhelmingly dominant Conservative administration.

The bits I’ve seen happen

  The CA / JAR has been on the horizon and influencing the work done by senior managers and committees for some time; years rather than months.  It has seemed to me that ’getting ready for the JAR’ has been both an excuse and a lever, as some pieces of work have been given priority over others.

I have been (still am) a member of the ‘Member Advisory Group’ that started meeting in December. Six County Councillors were matched by six and then five Officers.  There would have been two members from each political group, regardless of  proportionality, except that neither of members of the 2-man Labour group took part.

I felt that in spite of this, there was initially a certain jolly-hockey-sticks approach in the first couple of meetings, which was dispersed by a fairly robust scepticism from at least one member later on, and transmuted steadily into a reasonably healthy concern that as good a picture should be presented as was consistent with the truth. There was also discussion of arrangements: the Council’s self-assessments, the acual arrangements for the visits by the inspectors, how Councillors of all parties would be informed and might be involved and briefed. 

I can’t quote from these private meetings, but a couple of remarks in the open Children and Families Committee while discussing of the CA / JAR on 16th January were as follows:

‘If you talk to the members, you’re gonna talk to the members you want the JAR to hear’ - Yvonna Lay, the Conservative Chair of the Committee.

Sean Rafferty (Lead Manager Service and Performance Development) suggested SCC should be ‘truthful to the organisation, but [I] want to present the organisation in the best light that I can.’

Despite Yvonna’s appraisal, my impression was that the process overall was not unbalanced in a way that necessarily negated the purpose of the inspection. Yes, very early in their  ‘fieldwork’  the Inspectors, at their own request, only had a brief tour of a small segment of Surrey that could could showcase good developments. Who would see them, in terms of Staff, representatives of partner organisastions, and Councillors, was closely organised. There was a rehearsal, to check out the logistics and make sure everything could work to time.

From there, the Inspectors decided who they would meet. Committee Chairs and Party Leaders were in there, and also some Focus Groups. One of these was a mix of ‘back bench’ Councillors, and I was one of the Liberal Democrat participants. 

For this, so that we could give of our best, we were offered a briefing from an outside consultant from Solace Enterprises, according to their website ‘one of the most respected public service improvement companies in the UK ‘. He ran through some of the things they might be interested in when talking to Councillors about their work: how overview and scrutiny works, the balance between Committees and the Executive, Council members on training and how they see and perform their roles. He warned us that they would be nice, would engage us in discussion, and that we should regard this as our chance to contribute to the final report. We were to expect them to be note-taking on computer.

On the 8th of March a mixed bag of Councillors sat in a large semi-circle of a downstairs conference room, faced by two inspectors, including the Lead Inspector from the Audit Commission.  

There was a low-tech approach to note-taking: two boards for post-it style notes and not a computer or sound-recorder that I could see. The purpose of our being there was to help gain clarity, to talk about whether the Council had clear objectives and whether it was going about meeting them rationally and successfully. Three ground rules to start with: ‘Chatham House Rules’, no party politics, and respect for others’ opinions.

Our first task was to supply a one-word description of the Council. (Difficult, I know, but measure temperance seemed called for). All got put on one board and used as the basis for an open discussion. Then it was three good things and three less good things about the Council. Similar discussion.

And there my notes run out, because I was busy trying to do what our training had advised, and get in comments that I would like to see taken up in the final report.

Discussion was guided, but not very obtrusively. One area  of concern I remember was Looked After Children, and how well or otherwise Councillors are trained to be aware of their responsibilities. There was a certain amount about Transport, and more about Local Committees.

Afterwards I was asked if I would be willing to run through what had happened in the meeting, within the limits for confidentiality set down by the Inspectors, which I did.  

As with a School’s Ofsted inspection, there was immediate feedback to the senior team, which filtered down to the Task Group. No, my lips are sealed and my fingers frozen on that one - strictly confidential until the 22nd of July, when the final reports of the Audit Commission and Ofsted are published.  And as it happens, the last Full Council meeting before the summer recess has been moved to this date.

What happens after that, and what difference will it make? - I’ll hope to report back in later postings.