The idea of regular inspection is a sound one, with which few professional and lay people disagree. Of course we should know how good our schools are and ensure that our children are being well educated.

The creation of a national system for inspections has been a mammoth task. The Office for Standards in Education consulted widely and adapted its framework. But even after adjustment and improvement can the procedure be guaranteed to raise standards?

My organisation, the Norfolk Inspection, Advice and Training Service, took an active part in secondary inspections in 1993-94. This year we decided to bid for as many primary inspections in our own county as possible, while still maintaining advice and training services for schools. We have, therefore, tested the system and our team.

Nearly a term into the new system of inspecting primary schools and with 19 inspections completed, there was clear evidence that: * We have misjudged the time needed for this work. Registered inspectors are spending between 25 per cent and 75 per cent more time on preparation for inspections than estimated. Time needed for checking evidence after inspection has also been underestimated. Early indications are that registered inspectors need 45 per cent more time for the whole process.

* The work is exhausting, intensive and carries great responsibility. How long will primary registered inspectors want or be able to do it?

* The cost to schools is greater than anticipated. Even schools which received a good report say they are exhausted by the process and face the rest of the term feeling drained.

* The pressures are felt most keenly by headteachers and teachers in small schools. In Norfolk, 50 per cent of primary schools have fewer than 100 pupils on roll. Many headteachers have almost a full-time teaching commitment. In such cases, not only does the head have to deal with the analysis of the school’s management, and observations of his or her teaching, but also the coordination of as many as half of the curriculum subjects. In spite of attempts to be sensitive to colleagues in small schools, it is inevitable that the current process is particularly stressful to them.

* Finally, there is no guarantee that the inspection will generate improvement. Norfolk education department is concerned about this and allocates funds to help schools implement their action plans. Currently it will fund between 40 and 70 per cent of the cost of advice and support for each school depending on the size of the school, but can that go on?

So is there an alternative? Last year Norfolk agreed to fund a programme of supported reviews for primary schools, closely linked to improvement of the quality of education. Twenty-six reviews were carried out at schools’ request. The schools suggested a focus for the review, the staff who would work with our team and the criteria to be used. This enabled suitable advisers to be allocated to plan the review with the head or other staff .

OFSTED criteria were used in some way for all the reviews, but 63 per cent were based directly on the quality of learning, the quality of teaching and the quality and range of the curriculum.

A wide range of activities was undertaken. In some cases, these involved meetings and study of policies and in most they involved classroom observations where judgments were reached on the quality of work seen. These were shared with staff and reported either verbally or in writing as the school wished. Clear indications were given of areas for development and suggestions for follow-up work.

Sharing the criteria and observations enabled teachers and heads to gain professional development by becoming more familiar with the OFSTED framework and with strategies for monitoring and evaluating.

Staffs in all schools were positive about their reviews and clearly appreciated the opportunity to have a critical friend helping them to make judgments on their own practice and plan ways in which to improve. Many heads found this was a helpful, manageable way of taking the school forward. All advisers involved considered that supported reviews were valuable to the schools and in line with their own understanding of effective curriculum and professional development. They also enjoyed the work.

Can we learn from this? Is there a way of ensuring that the best elements of OFSTED practice are retain-ed and others adapted to ensure that quality is monitored but in a more manageable and humane way? It is time to refine the system for monitoring the work of schools and balance the need to reduce the pressure without narrowing the framework to a minimalist focus on core subjects. The criteria must remain the same for all schools but the process of using it could be different. The present system of treating all schools the same is not helpful or productive. Can OFSTED meet the challenge?

In the past Her Majesty’s Inspectors frequently made very succinct judgments about the quality of education provided by a school during a day visit. Should OFSTED be considering a system where the first step is an assessment to decide on the type of inspection or review which would be most appropriate?

A small minority of schools might give cause for concern and merit a full inspection. The majority will be at different points on a continuum of development and could be recommended for a staged programme of review.

Considerable funds have been withdrawn from LEAs to pay for a national scheme of inspections. We do not yet know what impact this has had on schools and staff. Some of the data which we have noted above should give cause for concern.

There would undoubtedly be great interest among registered inspectors in tendering to undertake work and report on a pilot study of staged or supportive reviews. We are well aware of where the current system creaks and groans and would welcome exploration of alternatives.

Elaine Ball is senior primary inspector with the Norfolk Inspection, Advice and Training Service.