Section 5 Inspection
2 days – 1 HMI and 2 OIs – 1 additional (Senior) HMI on Day 1, undertaking a QA role
Preparation: The Phone Call
Two parts as per the handbook (p.17):
- A reflective, educationally focused conversation about the school’s progress since the last inspection.
- A shorter inspection-planning conversation that focuses on practical and logistical issues.
The lead inspector and I agreed that this would be carried out as two separate conversations with a break in between. The handbook states, “In total, these conversations are likely to last around 90 minutes.” In our case, this was over 2 hours but at my request (or insistence!) – ensuring an understanding of the unique context of this academy was absolutely crucial. The lead inspector was in total agreement and gladly allowed more time.
Part 1: A reflective, educationally focused conversation about the school’s progress since the last inspection.
In addition to context (EAL, NTE, languages, deprivation, crime, mobility including MYAs etc.) we discussed:
- ‘The journey’ from the previous inspection
- The progress made overall and the key/main steps taken to ensure rapid and sustained improvement
- Our current strengths and priorities, including self-evaluation judgements
- Our curriculum intent and the rationale under-pinning it (‘Our pupils need…’)
- Our curriculum implementation and the rationale under-pinning it e.g. sequencing, consistent pedagogical strategies used across the academy (‘Our pupils need…’)
Part 2: A shorter inspection-planning conversation that focuses on practical and logistical issues.
The first part of this call was much more procedural and followed the structure in the handbook (page 18).
Prior to the second call, as requested, I sent the lead inspector the timetable for each class with the subject being taught in each slot clearly labelled e.g. History, rather than ‘Topic’. We then used this to choose the ‘Deep Dive’ subjects together (in addition to Reading and Maths) based on what subjects were being taught during the inspection – we went with History and PE. We then worked through the logistical implications of this and I made absolutely certain that while teachers were out of class involved in deep dives the other OIs would not be observing in their classrooms as lessons would be being covered by TAs/others as a result of the inspection and would therefore not demonstrate typicality. Again, the lead inspector was very appreciative of this and ensured that the inspection timetable reflected this. I felt this was an affirmation of the rapport and shared understanding built in ‘Part 1’.
After the second call, I sent the lead inspector our EIP along with a further 3 key documents that I had asked if she would kindly read and share with the team prior to inspection – again, she was more than happy to do so and this was vital to inspectors’ understanding of the academy’s context. The documents were:
- Curriculum Overview
- Language Development Overview
- Reading Overview
Overviews they really are! Maximum 3 pages each and mostly bullet points, charts etc. At this point I felt pleased that the lead inspector had invested so much time in discussing the above with me… I was about to feel very redundant for the next two days!!!
Deep dives were sequenced like this:
Meeting with the Subject leader
Discussions and questions posed
Quality of Education
Intent
- Curriculum design, coverage and appropriateness
- How is the curriculum intent decided and communicated?
- How does the curriculum intent reflect the context and the most common barriers to learning?
- How articulate are teachers and support staff in why and how in addition to what is taught?
- How is assessment used to inform curriculum design and sequences of learning?
Implementation
- Curriculum delivery
- How consistently does teaching reflect the curriculum intent?
- How do lessons develop pupils’ communication, social and oracy skills alongside the content being taught?
- For each subject – What is taught? When? How? Why?
- Teaching (pedagogy) –contribution to delivering the curriculum as intended
- How effective is training for all teaching and support staff e.g. in the effective use of all strategies relating to curriculum intent; in the delivery of phonics; in response to the most common SEND needs
- How are teachers’ skills in subject-specific delivery audited, developed, shared?
- Assessment (formative and summative)
- How is assessment used to inform curriculum design and sequences of learning?
- For each subject – How are end of KS expectations broken down into each year group?
- For each subject – How do specific skills look different in each year group? E.g. use of pencil, ink, charcoal and pen in Art and Design; use of knowledge about an artefact in History
- How do teachers adapt the curriculum in response to individual SEND pupils’ needs (e.g. EHCPs, SEND targets)? How are these needs communication and evaluated?
- How is formative assessment used to ensure timely support/intervention/challenge?
Impact
- Attainment and progress (including national tests and assessments, 2019 IDSR)
- Reading, reading, reading!
- How is early reading prioritised? How effective is the approach?
- How do we engage pupils and develop a love of reading?
- Are pupils’ books pitched appropriately and changed regularly? Linked to phonic knowledge.
- Are there high expectations of the level of texts pupils read at home? How engaged/aware are parents?
- For those who don’t/can’t read at home, how do we ensure access to reading to an adult regularly and reading for pleasure?
- What about pupils who fall behind?
- Interventions? How are they designed?
- How do we know they are effective?
- How is the curriculum adapted for these pupils?
- How is the curriculum adapted to prevent an increase in the number of the pupils?
Personal Development
- In what depth is this coherently planned and sequenced?
- How aligned is the approach and delivery to the overall curriculum intent?
- How consistent and embedded is the provision? What is the impact on pupils?
- How are links made within and between subjects to enhance pupils’ SMSC development?
- Do pupils benefit from first-hand, memorable experiences as a basis for learning in context?
- How are pupils’ talents and interests identified and developed?
- How does the provision reflect the school/community context?
Behaviour and Attitudes
- How do we ensure that pupil/academy-specific behaviour management strategies are clearly communicated and consistently implemented?
- How effective is training for all teaching and support staff?
- Can pupils articulate how positive behaviour and attitudes are developed/ encouraged/ rewarded?
- How are we encouraging attendance and punctuality? What is the impact?
- Can we demonstrate that FTEs are a ‘last resort’?
- How do we develop pupils’ resilience, independence, communication and risk awareness/ risk-taking? Including when tasks are demanding, particularly for most able pupils.
Leadership and Management
- Are leaders’ ambitions/expectations of what all pupils (including SEND, DA, vulnerable groups) can achieve consistently high?
- Is there a tangible, consistent culture of safeguarding?
- Are all staff aware of local and/or academy-specific vulnerabilities/safeguarding issues?
- How do leaders check that all staff understand c.) and act swiftly in response to all concerns/signs of vulnerability and risk as a result?
- How do leaders ensure that newly appointed staff have the knowledge and understanding to keep children safe, particularly if training was completed elsewhere?
- How are NQTs and newly appointed staff supported? Particularly in relation to academy-specific pedagogy, approaches, policies.
- Can all subject leaders – for every subject – articulate the Implementation section detailed above?
- How do leaders decide on policy/procedure content? E.g. curriculum, marking, planning.
- What measures are taken to ensure staff are well supported? How do we ensure that meaningful engagement takes place with staff at all levels, including re: workload?
- Do those responsible for governance understand their statutory duties?
- Are those responsible for governance able to link questions/challenges and visits to key improvement priorities?
- Do those responsible for governance hold leaders to account by following up responses to questions/challenges? Including by looking at evidence first-hand.
KIT Meetings
These were clearly timetabled pre-inspection but may not have happened if we hadn’t actively sought them during inspection. No criticism of the team at all and no reflection on the conduct of the inspection. Purely time!! (i.e. lack of!!) Be a nuisance – you need to know their thoughts and trails as often and in as much detail as possible.
End of Day 1 Meeting
Around 90 mins observing the team’s meeting re: findings and trails. No judgement terminology used but evidence made interim judgements clear. Make notes, brief staff and ensure any additional evidence relating to Day 2’s content is ready for the following morning.
Final Feedback
Exactly as detailed in the handbook (pages 30-31). I requested that all SLT were present (for their development) …. and so that we could all take copious notes!