Educology

Introduction

The problem of ensuring quality in mass education

systems is as old as the systems themselves. Responses to

this problem reflect the political and cultural organisation of

different nation states. In the USA the problem has to be

dealt with at a local level. The federal government is very

restricted in powers in the field of education and social

policy. These are matters reserved in the first instance to the

individual states, and they are then devolved to even more

local levels (counties, municipalities and school districts

32

within municipalities). The situation in Europe is different.

Although in Germany the role of control and regulation is

devolved to a regional level, the land, central government

reserves to itself significant power over education. In the

United Kingdom, although there is some administrative

devolution to local authorities, and in recent years to schools

themselves, the central state (i.e. the national government)

has reserved the right to regulate and control most aspects of

education.

There has been increasing concern since the middle

1970’s over the quality of education offered in schools in

many of the developed countries of the west. International

comparisons, latterly with the “tiger economies” of the East,

have led to an increasing concern for the outputs of schools

and to using assessment and testing to establish public

accountability. What has been, and continues to be,

challenged by some politicians, policy makers and

academics is the efficaciousness of schools as organisations.

A powerful consequence of this has been the use of a model

for measuring school performance entirely as matter of

outcomes. It is a model, which at best minimises the effects

of context and ignores processes. This focus on outcomes

only is more a feature of USA policy. In Europe the use of

national school inspection has offered some focus on the

processes of schooling down to the level of the classroom.

The most recently developed system of inspection is that

used in England and Wales, and it is with this system as a

model which we are concerned. We argue that this is not

merely a parochial interest of England and Wales. On the

contrary, there has been considerable interest in the English

and Welsh system among other school inspectorates in

Europe and to some extent in parts of the USA.

The John F Kennedy School is a bit further afield than the schools

inspected by the Office for Standards in Education…. The three

33

person inspection team made its three day visit at the invitation of

education officials pushing for periodic British style external

reviews of US schools now generally accountable only to local

schools boards…. Some American educators want regular

inspections on the British model. In Boston, school officials have

approved an “accountability plan,” although it uses outside teams of

educators rather than professional inspectors to review schools.

[Marcus, 1998]

The Inspection System in England and Wales

From early in the nineteenth century, inspection by the

state had been a feature of both English and Welsh schools.

It has also been a feature in schools within Britain's then

colonies, for instance Western Canada, Australia, and

Ireland. This system deployed professional inspectors

largely drawn from the clerical and new professional

classes. Bruce Curtis' (1992) study of inspection in Western

Canada documents the nineteenth century concerns for the

kind of person an inspector should be. In Ireland, the

appropriate people for the position of school inspector were

characterised as "the Right Kind of Persons … people

capable of social intercourse with the gentry," what Curtis in

the Canadian situation calls "choice men." In England and

Wales, from the 1830's until the 1992 Education Act, a

relatively small, never more than 500, elite group of national

inspectors (Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools, HMI),

were responsible for inspecting schools and reporting on the

system. The 1992 Act replaced the old system with a new

office of state; The Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector

(OHMCI). The change was breathtakingly radical. The role

of Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector was to give

contracts to private teams, operate quality control and

assurance, collect, analyse and comment on data arising

from the inspection process and report on the health of the

system. It was argued in the lead up to this change that

34

regular, rigorous and open inspection would lead to school

improvement. The publication of school reports was

deemed to be an important aspect of the enterprise. It was

conceived as being vital to ensuring not merely

improvement, but also to driving out of the system of “bad

schools.” It was a deliberate policy of “naming and

shaming,” which, it was anticipated, would result in parental

rejection and boycott of the “bad schools.”

The creation of the organisation and its ethos was the

responsibility of the first Chief Inspector, Professor Stewart

Sutherland. He made it a matter of urgency that the new

organisation should be independent, and be seen to be

independent, of the DES, later named the DFEE, and now

named the DFES. He recognised the power of the very

special statutory and constitutional position of OHMCI in

that it was a non-ministerial department of state. This gave

the Chief Inspector an almost unique position in that

although reporting to parliament through the Secretary of

State for Education he was not a member of the Secretary of

State’s department. This independence enabled the Chief

Inspector to comment critically on the condition of

education in England in any way that he thought fit. To this

end he instituted the annual lecture and continued the

publication of an annual report, an innovation of the last

Chief Inspector of Schools, Eric Bolton. He also secured

undertakings that inspection reports would be published to a

timetable determined by the Chief Inspector and without

editorial review by ministers or other officials. Sutherland

further asserted the independence of his department from the

DES/DFEE by relocating from Sanctuary Building back to

Elizabeth House, the river Thames providing a real

geographic barrier between the two departments and

operating as a powerful symbol of their separation. “I

35

marched them out of Sanctuary Building and across the

river to Elizabeth House to show our independence.”

(Interview with Stewart Sutherland)

The origins of inspection in England, to a large extent,

lie in seeking compliance to regulations, to ensuring

accountability and in maintaining control. The memoirs of

inspectors confirm this. The role of HMI during the

nineteenth and earlier part of the twentieth century was to

ensure or enforce compliance of elementary schools to

central regulations. Sneyd-Kynnersley’s (1910) account of

his work up to his retirement in 1907 provides evidence of

this. Clark’s (1976) memoirs of his work as an assistant

inspector before WW2 show him behaving as an inspector

in a strikingly similar way to his earlier colleague. Like

Sneyd-Kynnersley he tests the pupils reading, writing and

numerical skills and checks that the school is following

central regulations. It was to this central idea of regulation

that Sutherland returned inspection.

The new system was to be different from that operated

recently by HMI, in that its focus was to be the inspection of

all schools on a four year cycle. It seems that Sutherland

did not see his organisation as replicating HMI, but as akin

to the other regulatory bodies set up around the same time,

to oversee newly privatised industries such as gas and water.

In fact Sutherland created the acronym OfSTED, Office for

Standards in Education by analogy with OFGAS and

OFWAT. However if OfSTED was to meet its mission of

inspection for improvement, neither the sort of crude

regulatory system of the nineteenth and early twentieth

century nor the post complaint method used by OFGAS nor

OFWAT would be sufficient. Effectively Sutherland

created an inspectorate that could operate as a “policy police

force.” The new OfSTED is a powerful regulatory body

36

dedicated to regulation within the state and in possession of

what Hood et al. (1999) called "nuclear weapons," the

power to name and shame. OfSTED then was developed

into a complex organisation incorporating a range of

functions. A major one was the production of inspection

documents directing and guiding the private inspectors’

behaviour and controlling and assuring the quality of

inspection. We will return to the nature and significance of

this documentation later.

Professor Sutherland established an independent and

unique method of inspection with a unique and explicit

mission to bring about school improvement. If this system

was to work, the role of the Registered Inspector had to be

rapidly established, and it is to this group we now turn. In

doing this, we will draw on a variety of sources including

data collected during an ESRC funded project investigating

the relationship between inspection in primary schools and

national policy making.

Registered Inspectors

Registered Inspectors have a linchpin role in making the

system work and a critical role in the production of

inspection knowledge. The Registered Inspectors in our

sample come from similar professional backgrounds. They

have been LEA advisors/inspectors with a background as

primary school headteachers; others have a background in

higher education, teacher training, having previously been

teachers, and a final group are former HMI.

Interviews with large contractors and with senior

officials from OfSTED indicate that this is typical of

Registered Inspectors nationally. Our sample and the

evidence of other studies show that Registered Inspectors

and their team member inspectors have appropriate

37

experience and qualifications. In the opinion of a Senior

HMI, Registered Inspectors have done more inspections

than an HMI ever did and as a consequence may now be

seen as the repositories of inspection experience.

Registered Inspectors make the system work. The stress

that schools suffer before, during and after inspection has

been the subject of much research and comment. (Duffy

undated, Jefferey and Wood, 1996, Brimblecombe et al.,

1996, Woods, Jefferey, Troman and Boyle, 1997). There

has been little comment or research on the workload and

stress that Registered Inspectors are subject to before,

during and after the inspection. Our informants make the

point that the total responsibility, legal and professional,

rests on the shoulders of the Registered Inspectors. “I’ve no

intention of going on, I’ve 18 months left, and I shall not do

any more, it’s too much.” (Registered Inspector)

The tasks that face a Registered Inspector are daunting.

They must manage a team skilfully such that no complaints

of professional discourtesy or of idiosyncratic behaviour

arise. They must form working relationships with

headteachers, governors, school staff and parents. And they

must report orally to the headteachers and chair of

governors at least on the results of inspection at the end of

the inspection process and produce a report conforming to

OFSTED’s stringent requirements within six weeks!

when you are inspecting you are really under pressure all the time

and you've got to get it right. You can't guess things, you've got to

get the evidence. It's eight in the morning until eight at night, then

writing up, and it’s a very intensive period, and I think they were

probably right to put us under that similar pressure you know, and if

you couldn't hack it well you know. [Registered Inspector]

In considering the problem of inspecting and the

complex relationships that are involved, Registered

Inspectors point particularly to the value of experience in

38

ensuring that inspection is properly conducted. One of our

informants with lengthy experience as a primary school

headteacher and then as a senior LEA advisor was insistent

that relevant experience was essential.

My perspective is that I don’t think it’s right that people who have

mainly taught in secondary schools or the reverse, who have mainly

taught in primary, should go into the other phase of education with

the right to criticise along the lines that they do. Now I’m not naive

enough to believe that you’ve got to do something in order to be

able to criticise, I’m not saying that. But the sort of activity that

inspection of a primary or secondary school involves is so finetuned

and it’s so, the judgements that you have to make are, I don’t

want to use the word severe, it’s not severe, are so important - I

can’t think of a better word than that at the moment although there

is a better word - that you really do need some sort of background in

order to be able to make them. So I’ve got a very strong view on

that. [Registered Inspector]

The general opinion of this group of Registered

Inspectors was that “doing” the inspection professionally

and sympathetically and making proper judgements are

predicated not just on previous experience but the amount

and quality of it. “A life time’s experience” and a range of

work in schools, advisory services and higher education

were deemed to be what was required. One informant made

this very explicit.

I spent all my life in primary schools, all my professional life, how

much more difficult must it be for those people who after one-day

training have to come in to inspect primary schools? If you want

somebody who is doing it properly, they can’t be that ... it’s

experience that counts. [Registered Inspector]

It [relevant experience] is essential for your credibility to primary

schools. They want to know you’ve been a head, know what it’s

like. [Registered Inspector, previous primary head and LEA

officer]

Having relevant experience makes Registered Inspectors

not simply more acceptable to schools and sympathetic to

39

them, but enables them to exercise professional judgement.

One confident informant had been the headteacher of two

primary schools and had then spent some 15 years as a local

authority advisor/inspector.

I feel I’ve got a lot of professional independence and my line has

always been to do it…. I do inspections in the way I think they

should be done which is on a consultative basis which of course as

you know what comes out from OfSTED is sometimes

contradictory, I just say to myself I must do it the way I think best.

[Registered Inspector]

A Registered Inspector who works with a large local

authority team, often with members known to each other,

aimed always to apply the “Framework” consistently,

rigorously and fairly. His concern was to use the

“Framework” as a way of

making sure we are actually answering those questions so that,

come to the end of the inspection, I’m confident we have answered

all the bits we have to … and in terms of interpretation, I think we

have a corporate view of how to interpret it because of the way

we’ve worked together. [Registered Inspector]

This is not to say that Registered Inspectors operate in a

maverick manner, interpreting OfSTED documentation in

an idiosyncratic way. Rather, they feel their experience

enables them to use it in a productive and professional

manner. For instance, discussing the revision of the

Framework and Handbook, one informant stated

I think the new Framework is better than the old, there’s no doubt

about that, I’ll start by saying that. More manageable ... but the old

was a really good book. It picked up all the important things about

schools. [Registered Inspector]

The following comment makes the point that the

Framework and Handbook must be followed as precisely as

possible but that does not preclude interpretation.

You’ve got to put into your report all the things that are clearly

outlined in the framework. I mean you won’t get away with not

doing that, so in the one sense, that’s quite a proper structure

40

because you’ve got to treat schools the same as far as you can. But

I think there is an interpretation. [Registered Inspector]

Rather like the mode of inspection described by Sneyd-

Kynnersley and by Clark, Registered Inspectors have to

follow a strict regime set out in regulatory documentation.

OfSTED produces the documentation and insists that it is

used under stringent guidelines. Even so, Registered

Inspectors have a limited capacity to interpret the

documentation and do so, as did many HMI inspecting

under the Revised Code.

The way I read what OfSTED are saying to me is that is to make it

developmental; they did say that right at the beginning, it’ll waste so

much time and effort if it is only, say, as a way to tell political

masters what schools are like. Looking at a school after the Head’s

been there 2 years, I seem to have got quite a lot of schools where

the Head’s been there 18 months or so. And one of the things I feel

I’ve been able to do is really get to grips with what the Head feels

about the school, to say what we feel about it, and I am sure that is

helpful to the Head, but its not always in OfSTED. [Registered

Inspector]

Registered Inspectors are prepared both to do the hard

work and to interpret the documents to “get the best deal for

the school” because they are convinced that inspection can

and should lead to improvement. Although many of the

sample had been a little sceptical of inspection generating

improvement when they first began to inspect, they all felt

that an objective and rigorous report on a school would be

useful.

I do think it improves practice. I think what it does, it helps schools

to focus on things that are really important. I think the framework is

helpful before the inspection begins in helping those schools to

focus on it. [Registered Inspector]

Having completed a large number of inspections, they

are convinced of OFSTED’s mission. It is interesting here

to note that Roy James, recently retired HMCI Wales,

argued against the new system at first, but now declares that

41

there is something in it. Inspection, in his view, will lead to

school improvement.

Although Registered Inspectors perceive the possibility

of inspection leading to improvement, they point to a lacuna

in the system. There is a requirement for the progress of

schools post inspection to be monitored. In the case of

schools deemed to be satisfactory, this seems not to be made

a priority. More significantly, in the view of our informants,

schools in special measures receive support, help and

guidance in meeting their needs, but schools which are “said

to be OK don’t get much if any.” “I try to avoid serious

weaknesses, there are ways round it, either put them in

special measures or make them satisfactory ... they only get

help, extra funds for measures.” [Registered Inspector]

They point to two different things. First there are only

minimal extra resources to support school development and

improvement after inspection, unless the school is deemed

to be failing. Secondly they understand the difficulties that

LEA’s have in meeting the advice needs of schools because

of the way in which they have been stripped of power and

resources since 1979. It is difficult, they believe, to identify

who can fill the gap, but that without support and

monitoring, how will schools use inspection to improve?

There has been anecdotal evidence of Registered

Inspectors seeking to offer schools follow-up advice, but our

informants accept that the distancing of inspection from

advice is the best thing to do. “There should be [advice],

but it’s got to be somebody who wasn’t involved in the

inspection.” [Registered Inspector]

The same Registered Inspector spoke of a headteacher

who had sought follow up advice from him. He had

refused, but explained why the head had made the request.

He [the Head] thought the people who’d made the identification

were best placed, and, I mean, perhaps that’s right too. But on the

42

other hand you can’t put the two together, but somebody else could

probably do it, and that would be good. If we could do an extension

of inspection into the advice mould, but done by other inspectors,

that would be good. [Registered Inspector]

Registered Inspectors are convinced that inspection can

lead to improvement but feel that, by itself, it is not enough.

The Responsibility of Inspectors

We now turn to a conceptual model of inspection in

current use. (Fitz and Lee 1996) We draw here on the work

of Basil Bernstein (1995, 1996), which posits fields with

their own rules of access, regulation, privilege and

specialised interests. The definition of what counts as

“good” and “poor” education and educational practice is

generated in what Bernstein calls the Official

Recontextualizing Field. We locate OfSTED and

DFEE/DEFS in this field. From here the definitions and

accompanying regulations, the “official educology,”

emanate. In the case with which we are dealing, this

discourse is transmitted via the Framework documents.

This documentation, “Handbooks for the Inspection of

Secondary, Primary and Special Schools” (HMSO, 1995) is

claimed by OfSTED to be “consensual” and “the criteria for

school evaluation it contains are widely accepted as valid

and reliable.” (OfSTED, 1998) It is through this

documentation that OfSTED direct guidance and advice at

the Registered Inspector. But, it is in the field of inspection,

the field of educological recontextualization that the

“official educology” is activated. The responsibility of

Registered Inspectors to ensure compliance to regulation is

recognised in the recent document setting out policy and

practice for the “Literacy Hour” (DFEE, 1997), for instance.

Registered Inspectors occupy this field. In operating in it,

they have the responsibility not merely to transmit the

43

educology by the stringent application of regulations, but at

its edges to re-interpret it such that its goals can be met.

As we noted above, the improvement model proposed by

the centre is a top down model, and the chances for the

succes of such a model is deeply problematic. Also, given

the fact that OfSTED “knows” what to evaluate and inspect

gives the implication that OfSTED has in mind a set of

goals towards which schools should be working. Registered

Inspectors can be seen as actors attempting to ameliorate the

dictates of the OfSTED so that schools embrace the goals,

accept the model and use it to reach the goals.

The problem for Registered Inspectors is that they have

responsibility, but they are officially excluded from the field

in which educological prescriptions and regulations are

defined. Our data show that Registered Inspectors are

dissatisfied with this circumstance. They are wedded to the

ideas of improvement, but they are also acutely aware that

achievement of improvement is deeply problematic. They

therefore have recourse to interpreting the documentation so

that it becomes more usable and meaningful for schools.

This involves, as we noted above, “getting the best deal for

the school.” Each revision of documentation by OfSTED

has led to increasing regulation and control. OfSTED is

aiming to do two things: (1) first, to guard against

idiosyncratic judgements and thus produce fairness between

schools and (2) second, to reduce the capacity of Registered

Inspectors to interpret the documentation in order to

prescribe educology and maintain control. In the case of the

latter aim, it is worth noting that the control of inspectors

has always been a problem for the system.

There came a new Code, that was to put elementary education on a

really satisfactory basis. This was so common a phenomenon that

we hardly turned our head to look at it. [Sneyd-Kynnersley, 1910]

44

The lacunae which Registered Inspectors point to are (1)

the support and guidance for meeting the Key Issues in their

reports, (2) the personnel who are to have the responsibility

to monitor school action, and (3) the procedures to be

followed in the monitoring and improvement process, i.e.

the how of the process. Registered Inspectors are acutely

aware of the “problem” that action planning after inspection

causes for schools who have had a “reasonable or good”

rating from OfSTED.

This is recognised by Peter Matthews of OfSTED, as

noted above.

I think, yes, it would be a good idea if we went back in after 6

months to review it. You could have the sort of framework I

suppose you could confirm changes. I mean HMI aren’t able to do

it. [Registered Inspector]

All of our informants felt that monitoring was not done

and the action planning was unlikely to lead to the

improvement that the system of inspection promised. It was

also the view of some of our headteacher informants. They

felt that having prepared for inspection and been through it,

some improvement had come about, but they wanted to

know how they could be helped through the next stage.

They ought to have a system, didn’t they, for doing it, a sort of

framework for them to work for.... I always have this question, you

know, what happens after an inspection, and I’m always never quite

sure what I’m saying, but I’ve taken to saying, well, it’s the

responsibility of the LEA, because the question is from big people

in the business, they don’t ask it this way, but what happens if we

don’t do anything, if nothing’s done about it? [Headteacher]

What is interesting here is that Registered Inspectors are

not trying to shirk responsibility, but rather, to take more

responsibility on the principle that it will improve the school

system.

I guess that we’re in the best position really to be consultants to

schools…but It’s not allowed. [Registered Inspector/Small

Contractor]

45

This view that monitoring and follow up is a problem is

shared by many headteachers and by the bigger contractors.

Contractors point to the same “gap” and feel that at least

some of the Registered Inspector force could fill it. It is a

puzzle as to why this obvious “hole” has not been filled. A

move to allow or encourage Registered Inspectors to

monitor school action plans and/or offer support and advice

would give them access to the field occupied by OfSTED.

They would be in a position to engage in the Official

Recontextualization of Inspection policy, rather than as now

being in a position of being consulted as and when it is felt

necessary.

The Question of Improvement

The inspection process and the report are clearly

intended to provide a rigorous evaluation of the school, and

in doing this provide significant markers of quality. In this

sense it meets the requirements for school improvement that

come out of recent research on effectiveness and

improvement. There is a real problem though in that the

relevant educological literature indicates that it is selfevaluation

rather than external evaluation that motivates

change in teachers and school organisation. However, the

value of OfSTED inspection in promoting change and

improvement has been vigorously argued.

It has never been claimed that inspections in themselves would be

sufficient to improve schools, that must be true of other forms of

school evaluation. Inspection falls into the intriguing category of

things which are necessary but not in themselves sufficient to

achieve school improvement. [Rose, 1995]

OfSTED has answered this criticism, made by one of its

most senior inspectors, in the most recent guidance offered

to schools by OfSTED. The guidance focuses on the role of

46

schools self evaluation. It is worth noting that the guidance

booklet is entitled, “School Evaluation Matters.”

If schools are to maintain high standards or secure improvement,

they need a strategy for appraising their own performance which

compliments the thorough but occasional health check provided by

inspection. [OfSTED, 1998]

The guidance then goes on to argue that schools should use

the Framework and Handbook for inspection as a practical

template for self evaluation.

The Framework helps to evaluate why standards are as they are and

to identify strengths and weaknesses. This diagnosis allows

priorities for action to be decided. [OfSTED, 1998]

The reason that the Framework is so valuable is carefully

spelt out with reference to the criteria for judgement and

argues that they are accepted as valid and reliable.

The criteria are:

effective schools

inspection of 20,000 schools over four years

were when first published

The criteria, moreover,

of leadership; judgements are made in terms of the

effectiveness of the process concerned;

wish;

staff of schools, governors and parents as well as inspectors;

judgements by inspectors. [OfSTED, 1998]

The inspection report is the critical document in

directing schools towards improvement by spelling out their

strengths and weaknesses. However the quality of reports

has been called into question. A large contractor takes the

47

view that some reports are bland, are without a critical edge

or are simply badly written.

It seems that for some Registered Inspectors the report just comes

off the word processor. [Contractor]

The consequence is that the report does not clearly

indicate to schools what aspects of their practice need

improvement and what strengths they can build on. This

criticism of the nature of the report, from an organisation

convinced of the value of OfSTED inspection, is

surprisingly similar to that presented by OFSTIN, an

organisation convinced that OfSTED inspection procedures

are harmful to many schools.

The report language was simplistic and infantile…. Our report was

bland, repetitive to a point of incoherence and demoralising to read

for the whole team. [Duffy ed., undated]

Peter Matthews, OFSTED’s head of inspection quality

emphasised the importance of the report in a recent

interview.

But, in our terms, a successful inspection is one which gives clear

feedback to the school and a clear well written report. [Hoare,

1997]

OfSTED has issued further directives and advice to

Registered Inspectors since the new “Framework” was

introduced in 1995. Registered Inspectors are enjoined to

write reports in a clear and accessible language, give greater

attention to the school’s own self evaluation, include

illustrations of significant judgements, emphasise strengths

and weaknesses and include clear key issues.

While OfSTED, the DFEE/DEFS, government advisory

bodies and politicians remain convinced that inspection can

lead to improvement, this has not been universally accepted

by education professionals. Even the most sceptical of

OFSTED’s critics have accepted the idea that external

inspection is useful and a proper instrument for judging

school performance. But the general response is that

48

external evaluation is not enough, that schools must own the

evaluation, become self evaluating institutions. “School

Evaluation Matters” by urging schools to replicate the

external evaluation conducted by OFSTED’s inspection

teams may be seen as meeting this criticism. Also the

internal process of identifying strengths and weaknesses

internally and diagnosing what works will clarify the key

issues and identify targets for improvement.

Further, what critics point to is the problem that the

mode and process of inspection brings and the way in

which, in their view it hampers rather than encourages

improvement. We take here Wragg and Brighouse’s (1995)

criticisms and proposals as representative of considered

criticism combined with argued proposals for a better

system. Their criticisms may be summarised as follows:

in a quandary as to how to plan to meet key issues;

and management to offer a critical analysis of the

school;

thus inspection cannot really take account of the school

context.

They propose a mixture of local and national inspection

involving, HMI, local authority inspectors and seconded

headteachers. They envisage a revised framework for

inspection with core features, but written in such a way as to

enable the school context to be recognised. There should be

a process of ongoing rigorous school evaluation, and this

should be supported through guidance drawn from the

inspectorial body. There are aspects of both these proposals

and the criticisms above that resonate with the data we have

from Registered Inspectors.

49

The literature on effectiveness and improvement accepts

the need for a rigorous external evaluation of school

performance. However the focus of school improvement is

whole school development, ideally the creation of school as

a self developing learning organisation. This movement

sees external evaluation and feedback as “elementary

mechanisms” (Scheerens and Bosker, 1997). It stresses the

problem that top down models have had. It identifies the

relative lack of success of such models in engendering

improvement. This leaves the current OfSTED with a

dilemma in that, along with DFEE/DEFS, it has adopted the

ideas of school improvement, but its mode and process of

inspection can be seen as not in tune with the idea of the self

developing learning organisation. Registered Inspectors

share many of these criticisms of the current system of

inspection in terms of it meeting the goal of school

improvement as we have shown. How can schools use

inspection to improve and who should have a role in the

evaluation and improvement processes?

Discussion

The highly developed system of inspection that operates

in England and Wales provides a mechanism of regulation,

accountability and quality control and assurance. Since its

inception in 1992, it has been the subject of change.

OfSTED argues that this change has come about as a result

of the experience of inspecting and the desire to provide

schools with good modes of improvement. The recent move

towards school evaluation but using criteria specified by

OfSTED is an attempt to meet those in the school

improvement movement who argue that change must arise

from within the institution rather than be externally

imposed. Alongside the “School Evaluation Matters”

50

OfSTED have published since 1998 school Performance and

Assessment reports (PANDA), which enable schools to

compare their performance with schools in similar social

settings and with a similar resource base. The inspection

system in England and Wales has seized the moral high

ground. The reiteration that inspection leads to

improvement and the torrent of advice, guidance and

prescription that has come from OfSTED has made criticism

very difficult. In the current official political and policy

discourse, criticism of OfSTED seems at time akin to taking

the part of Lucifer against Michael.

It is to the relationship of inspection to the development

of state education policy that we now turn.

The position of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is unique,

as we noted above. His capacity for action because of his

independence and his statutory position is very great, and

the present Chief Inspector, Chris Woodhead, has used that

capacity. Inspection in its regulatory form is a system of

surveillance, but a form of surveillance in which via the

central power of the state schools and teachers become

implicit in “controlling” themselves. Moreover the Chief

Inspector and OFSTED’s location in the Official

Recontextualizing Field means that they are defining and

controlling educological discourse. Foucault’s (Rabinow,

1986) coupling of knowledge-power, we argue, is evident in

that OfSTED defines what is to be inspected and how,

therefore what counts as quality in school is centrally

determined. In its direction of how inspections are to be

conducted and its demands on schools for access and

documentation, it ensures that schools as institutions and

teachers as individuals police themselves using centrally

proscribed criteria. The role of Registered Inspectors in this

process is significant in that they directly interface with

51

schools and ensure compliance with the state’s regulatory

framework. From the perspective of the Chief Inspector

school improvement will come about by ever more

prescribing the nature of educology, by an increasing central

control and definition of an official educology. Compliance

is assured both by the work of Registered Inspectors and

institutional self surveillance.

The recent publications of the Chief Inspector in his

annual reports and lectures and his regular press statements

show his propensity to operate in the policy making arena.

It is noteworthy that before “QCA,” the organisation

responsible for the National Curriculum, made any

statement, Chris Woodhead declared that primary schools

should now attend to a core curriculum of English, maths

and science and, in doing so, “drop” other subjects. In

doing this, he is also prescribing the educology of English

and maths by declaring that in future primary schools will

be inspected against their compliance with the so called

“Literacy and Numeracy Hours”. These educological

prescriptions define what is to be taught, when it is to be

taught and the sequencing of activities during in each hour.

The change of government in 1997 in the UK has not

brought about the expected, in some quarters, down playing

of inspection and centralisation. Rather, the reverse, has

occurred. The then new Labour government has moved

along a much more prescriptive line with respect to

educology than the previous Conservative one. It also

seems to have identified in OfSTED and its Chief Inspector

an important actor and ally in the policy field. The power of

the Chief Inspector and his propensity to make public policy

statements and to criticise government policy overtly led

him, Chris Woodhead, to resign in 2000. He now writes on

52

broad sheet supporter of the Conservative Party.

Footnote

1. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of ESRC. A version

of this article was presented at Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, April 24-26, 2002. We thank

discussants for their comments.

References

London: Routledge.

Brimblecombe N, Ormston M & Shaw M (1996): “Teachers’

Perception of Inspection” in Ouston J, Earley P & Fidler B (eds)

David Fulton.

University of Toronto Press.

London: DFEE.

Fitz J & Lee J (1996): The Fields of Inspection. Paper presented at

BERA Annual Conference, September.

OFSTIN.

Hood C.O, James O, Jones G., Scott C. and Travers T (1999):

Jeffrey B & Woods P (1996): "Feeling Deprofessionalised: The Social

53

London: Paul Chapman

London: HMSO.

Ouston J, Fidler B, Earlry P & Davies J (1997): The Impact of OfSTED

Inspection on Secondary Schools. Paper presented BERA, York,

1997.

Porter J & Ware J (1997): “Bringing about Change after Inspection:

Peregrine.

Exeter: Exeter School of Education, Media and Resources Centre.

University Press.

Press.