The Handbook for the Inspection of Schools is the clearest official explanation yet of what is involved in the efficient and effective management of resources by schools. But early evidence suggests it is not being consistently or universally applied.

The terms efficiency, effectiveness and value for money need further clarification. Efficiency and effectiveness are often treated as interchangeable and OFSTED inspectors’ value for money judgments are too crude and sometimes too inconsistent to be useful.

We analysed 66 of the early reports and concluded that judgments about efficiency in the processes of management within the school, the quality of inputs and value for money should be distinguished separately. Judgment of management efficiency appear to have a limited basis in measurement.

The criterion of effectiveness, “how well a programme or activity is achieving its established goals ”, is played down and effectiveness appears to be used in the general sense of achieving good practice.

There is similar lack of clarity in defining and assessing value for money. In a small minority of reports, this is seen as the achievement of the best buy in all senses with praise for those schools and departments which use tendering and quality assessment procedures for equipment purchases, and cost effectiveness evaluation for proposed and current policy programmes. In other reports, reference is made to value for money without criteria of value being established. In 25 per cent of the reports sampled, inspectors made no reference to it at all.

The recurrent theme in the reports was the need for more rational approaches to resource management. Inspectors say schools fail to integrate departmental and school planning, and do not use costing procedures which might lead to a better use of available resources.

There were comments about the achievement of aims and objectives in 47 of the 66 reports, a descriptive development plan in 29, but a fully-costed plan in only 18. It is possible that these may have existed in other schools, although the recommendations linked to comment on each type of plan suggest that all schools were being urged towards a process of planning. There were, for example, 36 recommendations about costing plans. There were references to the achievement of strategic planning in eight schools, and recommendations in 18, but there was no comment on this aspect of development in the remaining 40.

The comments made in each report indicate how far schools have moved towards a system of rational planning in resource management.

This is clearly in an early stage in more than half the schools reported upon, with inspectors commenting on school development plans where “Ithere is still some way to go before priorities are established together with realistic costs” or which give “Ino clear prediction of costs beyond the current year”.

Schools rated as giving good value for money show high quality in both teaching and learning experiences. Their percentages of pupils with more than five GCSE grades A to C vary from 34 per cent to 49 per cent, with one selective school at 95 per cent. Those schools giving unsatisfactory value for money include only one which is not socially deprived, and lower ratings for the quality of both learning and teaching. This may be explained by the fact that these schools are in high unit cost areas and in consequence outcomes, however crudely measured, are only achieved at a high cost.

The sample of 66 reports contained 26 with recommendations for improvements in the development planning process, 23 reports recommended a link between expenditure and defined school priorities and, more specifically, 30 reports outlined deficiencies in the resourcing and use of library accommodation.

The inspectors made supportive comments about the financial control in audit terms in 53 schools, and were similarly aware of a high degree of care in staff deployment in 57, and appraisal in 48. However, they wanted to see more links between professional development and priorities established in school development planning.

Rosalind Levavci+c and Derek Glover are at the Open University Centre for Educational Policy and Management. A 27-page report on this study is available from Rosalind Levavcic, OFSTED Study, Centre for Policy and Management, School of Education, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA. Price Pounds 5 (payable to the OU)