OFSTED’s motto is “improvement through inspection”. But is it working? Are schools benefiting from this expensive exercise? In an attempt to answer this, we questioned some of the first secondary schools inspected in the autumn term of 1993 - the schools likely to be the furthest advanced in their post-inspection action plans.

One hundred and seventy schools returned our questionnaires, a 60 per cent response rate. Information was also obtained by telephone interviews and a small number of case studies.

Preparation for inspection, verbal feedback during the inspection process and the written report were the three areas we explored as potential catalysts for school improvement. Headteachers were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the degree to which these contributed to their schools’ development. The results are shown in the table (right).

More than 85 per cent of schools had sent some staff on familiarisation courses as a preparation for inspection, and almost a quarter had made use of an external consultant or inspector to give guidance.

Most saw the process of preparation as a contribution to their school’s development, but some were critical of the time taken to prepare the necessary information for the inspection team. OFSTED is attempting to streamline the operation, but several of the case study heads spoke of the long lead-in time, “the need to go the distance and not peak too early”, and the danger of development or planning blight.

These factors would have to be taken into account in any cost benefit analysis of the inspection process, as would the effects of any post-inspection blues or immediate but shortlived deterioration in performance.

Schools found verbal feedback from inspectors to be as valuable as preparation for inspection, but the case studies found the amount of feedback given varied both between and within inspection teams. Teachers welcomed the advice offered but felt a degree of frustration that the inspection was not necessarily to be followed by support or in-service training.

Only one school in five intended to use any form of external consultant to help implement the action plan, yet more than 85 per cent reported that staff INSET would be needed.

The final report was found to be slightly more valuable to the schools than the preparation or the verbal feedback. In general, schools which responded positively to one aspect of the process were also positive about the others. Although there were some critical comments, the majority were positive.

Combining the replies to the three questions about the value of the process shows that 7 per cent of schools could be seen as very negative and 20 per cent as very positive about the developmental value. This does not mean the heads necessarily regarded OFSTED inspections as the most effective means to bring about school improvement.

In schools which derived most benefit from the inspection process:

* heads had been recently appointed or in post 10 years or more;

* they were medium or large in size;

* governors and the LEA contributed to the action plan;

* the registered inspector was not known;

* an external consultant or adviser helped with the action plan.

Action plans need to be seen with the school’s development plan just over half the respondents said they focused on similar issues.

OFSTED has set up a task force to review its operations. Will schools already inspected have to go through the process again? Our research suggests a greater degree of value reported by schools than might be expected from the literature on school improvement and total quality management. But whether using resources in this way represents value for money remains an open question.

Peter Earley, Brian Fidler and Janet Ouston are based at the Institute of Education, University of London and the University of Reading. Their research is partly funded by the British Educational Management and Administration Society (BEMAS)