Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Side Effects of School Inspection; Motivations and Contexts for Strategic Responses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Methods and Modalities of Effective School Inspections

Part of the book series: Accountability and Educational Improvement ((ACED))

  • 602 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces three categories of unintended consequences from school inspections: (1) intended strategic behaviour where schools manipulate the inspection assessment through window dressing, misrepresentation or gaming, (2) unintended strategic behaviour when schools narrow their educational practices as a result of the behaviour of the assessor and/or by the method of working used for the assessment, and (3) other types of consequences, such as stress, anxiety and increased workload. As many inspection systems use standardized student achievement tests to evaluate school output, a fourth category on unintended responses to high stakes testing will also be introduced.

The results from a recent systematic literature review will be used to provide evidence of responses in each of the four categories. The review shows that most studies present examples from England and previous case study work from Perryman (J Educ Policy 21(2):147–161, 2006) will therefore offer more in-depth views of how an English school responds strategically to school inspections. The final section of the chapter provides explanations of the conditions under which such responses may occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altrichter, H., & Kemethofer, D. (2015). Does accountability pressure through school inspections promote school improvement? School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research Policy and Practice, 26(1), 32–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (1990). Introducing Monsieur Foucault. In S. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (1997). Good school/bad school: Paradox and fabrication. British Journal of the Sociology of Education, 18(3), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: Implications for policy-makers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. (2012). Teachers’ professional autonomy in England: Are neo-liberal approaches incontestable? FORUM: for Promoting 3–19 Comprehensive Education, 54(3), 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: ‘Educational Triage’ and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brimblecombe, N., Ormston, M., & Shaw, M. (1995). Teachers’ perceptions of school inspection: A stressful experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(1), 53–61. doi:10.1080/0305764950250106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brimblecombe, N., Shaw, M., & Ormston, M. (1996). Teachers’ intention to change practice as a result of Ofsted school inspections. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 24(4), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, C. (2008). (Gen Sec of NAHT) Ch. 8 We need an inspection process. But not this one. In A. De Waal & Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Eds.), Inspecting the inspectorate: Ofsted under scrutiny. London: Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change (Occasional Paper Series, Paper 8). Hanover: The Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, P., et al. (2000). Please show you’re working: A critical assessment of the impact of OFSTED inspection on primary teachers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(4), 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2000). Improvement, inspection and self-review. Improving Schools, 3, 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2001). Changing classrooms through inspection. School Leadership & Management, 21(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. (2002). Ofsted and school improvement: Teachers’ perceptions of the inspection process in schools facing challenging circumstances. School Leadership & Management, 22, 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, S. J. (2012). Ofsted’s revised school inspection framework: Experiences and implications. Paper presented at BERA conference, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, S. J. (2013). Head teachers’ experiences of school inspection under Ofsted’s January 2012 framework. Management in Education, 27(4), 164–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, J. B., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system (Working Paper 12286). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12286

  • Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. (1995). What teachers and headteachers think about inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, A. (2006). Inspection, inspection, inspection: How Ofsted crushes independent schools and independent teachers. London: The Institute for the Study of Civic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. (2005, April 22). Friday forum: Inspection. Times Educational Supplement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, B. (1999). The analysis of documentary evidence. In J. Bell (Ed.), Doing your. Research project: A guide for first time researchers in education and social science (pp. 106–117). Buckingham: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Shackleton, N. (2015). Mechanisms of change in Dutch inspected schools; comparing schools in different inspection treatments. British Journal of Educational Studies. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071005.2015.1019413#abstract

  • Ehren, M. C. M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O‘Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on teaching and learning; Describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 3–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9156-4

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Swanborn, M. (2012). Strategic data use of schools in accountability systems. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system (NBER Working Paper 9307). http://www.nber.org/papers/w9307

  • Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1997). The value added national project: Final report: Feasibility studies for a national system of value added indicators. London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Stephenson-Forster, N. J. (1999). Is OFSTED helpful. An inspector calls: OfSTED and its effect of school standards. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follows, M. (2001). After the storm the tale of an Ofsted inspection. Management in Education, 15, 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C., & Gardner, J. (1999). The impact of school inspections. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 455–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C., & Noyes, A. (2007). The impact of school self evaluation processes on British teachers’ views of their work and professionalism. Paper presented at the BERA, London. Available from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/167834.doc

  • Haladyna, T. M., Nolen, S. B., & Haas, N. S. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I. (2012). “Managing” managerialism: The impact of educational auditing on an academic “Specialist” school. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harland, J. (1996). Caphter 6 Evaluation as realpolitik (p. 91-106). In D. Scott & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding educational research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Watling, R., & Beresford, J. (1999). From inspection to school improvement? Evaluating the accelerated inspection programme in Waltham forest. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 679–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, I. (2012). Subjective performance in the public sector: Evidence from school inspections. London School of Economics and Political Science. London: Centre for Economic Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5-6), 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (1996). Feeling deprofessionalised: The social construction of emotions during an OFSTED inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (1998). Testing teachers: The effect of school inspections on primary teachers. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K., Tymms, P., Kemethofer, D., O’Hara, J., Skedsmo, G., Myrberg, E., & Huber, S. (in prep). The unintended effects of school inspection.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble-Allen, D. (2004). Inspection at Summerhill: did Ofsted inspection result in improvement? U210580 Ed.D., University of Leicester (United Kingdom).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M., & Brunel University, Centre for the Evaluation of Public Policy and Practice. (1999). The Ofsted system of school inspection: An independent evaluation. Uxbridge: Brunel University Centre for the Evaluation of Public Policy and Practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koretz, D. M., McCaffrey, D. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2001). Towards a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions (CSE Technical Report 551). Los Angeles: CRESST/Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TR551.pdf

  • Lee, J., & Davies, J. D. (2000). Bereavement and loss: The emotional consequences of special measures for a sample of special schools. Improving Schools, 3, 44–50 (not in spreadsheet as based on same data set as reference below).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, R., & Hempel-Jorgensen, A. (2012). The importance of teaching: Pedagogical constraints and possibilities in working-class schools. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 601–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeath, J. (2004). Putting the self back into self-evaluation. Improving Schools, 7(1), 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacBeath, J. (2006). A story of change: Growing leadership for learning. Journal of Educational Change, 7(1-2), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeath, J. (2008). Leading learning in the self-evaluating school. School Leadership and Management: Formerly School Organisation, 28(4), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maritzen, N. (2008). Schulinspektion. Zur Transformation von Governance-Strukturen im Schulwesen [School inspection. On the transformation of governance structures in the schooling system]. Die Deutsche Schule [The German school], 100(1), 85–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Lisi, P. L., & Davidsdottir, S. (2011). Operationalising self-evaluation in schools: Experiences from Ireland and Iceland. Irish Educational Studies, 30(1), 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memduhoglu, H. B. (2012). The issue of education supervision in Turkey in the views of teachers, administrators, supervisors and lecturers. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 149–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nees, P. (2006, May/June). Schools and their E.R.O. recommendations: A study of six Wellington area schools (Sabbatical report).

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouston, J., et al. (1997). What do schools so after OFSTED school inspections – Or before? School Leadership & Management, 17(1), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penninckx, M. (2015). Inspecting school inspections. Doctoral dissertation. University of Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2002). Surviving special measures: A case study of a ‘Fresh Start’ school. Improving Schools, 5, 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2007). Inspection and emotion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowright, D. (2007). Self-evaluation and Ofsted inspection developing an integrative model of school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(3), 373–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts-Holmes, G. (2014). The ‘datafication’ of early years pedagogy: If the teaching is good, the data should be good and if there’s bad teaching, there is bad data. Journal of Education Policy, 30, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, M. (1999). The impact of OFSTED inspections. London: National Foundation for Educational Research for the National Union of Teachers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebba, J., Clarke, J., & Emery, B. (1996). How can the inspection process enhance improvement in special schools? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11, 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2 and 3), 277–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practices). Tests and their use in test-based accountability systems. In L.S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of Test-based Accountability in Education. Santa Monica: Rand cooperation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1554/

  • Stewart, W. (2012, 31 August). Financial malpractice rife in schools, says council. Times Educational Supplement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturman, L. (2003). Teaching to the test: Science or intuition? Educational Research, 45(3), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturman, L. (2011). Test preparation: Valid and valuable, or wasteful? The Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 9, 31–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troman, G. (1997). Self‐management and school inspection: Complementary forms of surveillance and control in the primary school. Oxford Review of Education, 23(3), 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tymms, P. (2004). Are standards rising in English primary schools? British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Häkkinen, K., & Hämäläinen, S. (1998). External inspection or school self-evaluation? A comparative analysis of policy and practice in primary schools in England and Finland. British Educational Research Journal, 24, 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, A., Mattei, P., & Roberts, J. (2011). Accountability and sanctions in English schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, B., & Gray, J. (1994). Reactions to inspection: A study of three variants. Cambridge Journal of Education, 24, 245–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, B., & Gray, J. (1996). Inspecting schools: Holding schools to account and helping schools to improve. Buckingham: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, A., & Tymms, P. (2002). Dysfunctional effects of league tables: A comparison between English and Scottish primary schools. Public Money and Management, 22(1), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, M. N., & Li, H. (2010). From external inspection to self-evaluation: A study of quality assurance in Hong Kong kindergartens. Early Education and Development, 21(2), 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reader in Educational Accountability and Improvement, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

    Melanie C. M. Ehren

  2. CEM, Rowan House, Mountjoy Centre, Durham University, Stockton Road, Durham, DH1 3UZ, UK

    Karen Jones

  3. UCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

    Jane Perryman

Authors
  1. Melanie C. M. Ehren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Perryman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melanie C. M. Ehren .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom

    Melanie C.M. Ehren

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ehren, M.C.M., Jones, K., Perryman, J. (2016). Side Effects of School Inspection; Motivations and Contexts for Strategic Responses. In: C.M. Ehren, M. (eds) Methods and Modalities of Effective School Inspections. Accountability and Educational Improvement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31003-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31003-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31001-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31003-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation