Thirty-five years of school inspection: raisingeducational standards for children withadditional needs?Chris Marshall

In this invited article, Chris Marshall, teacher, edu-cational psychologist, university lecturer, and aformer book reviews editor for BJSE who has been aleading figure in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, exam-ines the inspection of schools over a period reflect-ing the 35 years during which BJSE has beenpublished. Chris Marshall provides here a history ofschool inspection as an activity and traces keychanges in provision for pupils with special educa-tional needs in England. He examines the purposesof inspection and explores the role that inspectorshave played in monitoring the impact of profoundchanges in legislation and policy upon pupils withspecial educational needs. He asks searching ques-tions about whether the inspection regime hasfulfilled its purposes in respect of these pupils –especially in relation to the vexed question ofraising standards. Chris Marshall then provides acritique of inspection methodology – and an over-view of the changes that have been introduced inthe inspection system as a result. He reviews thecontributions that inspection has made to ourunderstanding of how children with special educa-tional needs learn, and looks to the future to con-sider how inspection could be made to contributemore effectively.

Key words: inspection, schools, special educationalneeds, policy, standards, monitoring.

IntroductionThis article traces inspection from the early 1970s throughto the present day. It uses the terminology of the time, someof which is no longer acceptable or relevant in today’scontext; thus the children labelled ‘handicapped’ in the1970s became children with special educational needs in the1980s and 1990s, and now may be described as childrenwith learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LDD), or withadditional needs.

The last 35 years have seen massive changes in educationalprovision for all pupils, particularly those with additionalneeds. The most significant contributions with respect tothe latter have undoubtedly been the deliberations of theWarnock Committee, their published report and the subse-quent Education Act 1981. The introduction of the National

Curriculum and its associated assessment procedures,together with the birth in 1992 of the Office for Standards inEducation (OFSTED) and the new inspection regime, havealso had a major impact upon all schools, including specialschools.

School inspection serves a number of purposes: monitoring– does the school meet regulations?; evaluating – how wellis the school doing?; and comparing – how does the schoolcompare with other schools or with set targets? As a result ofan inspection, a decision then has to be made as to whetherthe school is doing well enough – has it reached a satisfac-tory standard, what could it do better and what should it doto effect these improvements? The inspection task is toreport on the whole school, and so, inevitably, inspectorscannot provide specific information on individual pupils,although this would be of most interest to parents.

While inspection has been part of the education systemsince 1839, the nature and frequency of inspections havechanged significantly, particularly since the early 1970s,both locally and nationally. Standards and the curriculumhave been of particular concern to the Government overthe past 15 years.

All those who are interested in education are keen to raisestandards but what, in practice, these standards are, andindeed how they can be assessed reliably, is still a cause ofconsiderable debate, particularly in relation to pupils withadditional needs. Are standards something to aspire to butalways out of reach (that is, as they are approached, theysuddenly become higher)? Are they referenced to anythingin particular, such as attainments by others (for example,those reached by other countries), or are they arbitrarytargets meeting certain established criteria, such as past per-formance of cohorts of pupils, ‘wished-for’ levels, employ-ers’ requirements or further education entry requirements?Whatever our conception, it seems that we would all likechildren to reach higher standards. For children with learn-ing difficulties, determining standards is extremely problem-atic since what might be appropriate for one child with aparticular disability is not necessarily so for another withthe same disability. Also, assessing whether satisfactoryprogress has been made (that is, that appropriate standardshave been reached) is seldom straightforward. Despiteframeworks devised to assist the inspection process, the art

SCHOOL INSPECTION

© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.

of assessing whether children with additional needs havereached appropriate standards remains highly complex.

Before WarnockMuch attention was given to the development of primary andsecondary schools in the post-war period, and the early 1970ssaw an increased concern for provision for ‘handicappedchildren’. In 1971, the responsibility for children previouslydesignated ‘ineducable’ passed from the health authorities tothe local education authorities (LEAs). There was a need fornew schools for this group of pupils, subsequently known as‘severely subnormal’ (then ESN (S), now known as pupilswith severe learning difficulties (SLD) or profound and mul-tiple learning difficulties (PMLD)). Funding was made avail-able to set up new special schools, units in mainstreamschools and specialised services to meet the needs of thewhole range of handicapped children. Special education,however, was still largely seen as that which occurred inspecial schools. The subsequent debate concerning dyslexiawas only just beginning (see DES, 1972), and conditions suchas autism, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, attention deficit hyperac-tivity disorder (ADHD) and obsessive compulsive disorder(OCD) were rarely diagnosed.

Local education authorities and inspectionBy 1970, most local education authorities had appointedsubject and phase advisers, who frequently also had aninspectorial role, to support and oversee education inschools and to provide advice to the local education authori-ty’s chief officers and Education Committee. Most authori-ties had one officer responsible for handicapped pupils.

At this time, formal inspection by local education authori-ties, as recommended by the 1968 Select Committee (Houseof Commons, 1968), was a fairly low priority unless majorconcerns had been expressed. Following the raising of theschool-leaving age to 16 years in 1972, the inspectorial rolebegan to change its focus – some local education authoritiescreated inspector posts or formally re-designated theiradvisers as inspectors. A small number of formal inspectionswere undertaken mainly, initially, of secondary schools, butsubsequently of primary and eventually of special schools.However, even by the early 1990s, ‘only a small number ofLEAs had substantial programmes of whole-school inspec-tions . . . in place’ (Wilcox, Gray & Tranmer, 1993). Adetailed report was then written, which usually went to theChief Education Officer, the Education Committee and theheadteacher and governors of the school. This was not apublic document and was not available to parents. Theseprocedures mirrored Her Majesty’s Inspectors’ (HMI’s)practice for a ‘full inspection’. There was no requirement bythe local education authority for the school to prepare anaction plan, although it was expected that a response wouldbe made to the main recommendations of the report. Duringthe 1980s, however, although ‘full inspections’ were notcommon, many local education authorities ‘were pursuingvigorous policies for monitoring and evaluating schoolsbased on “inspection” modes’ (Wilcox et al., 1993). Thuslocal education authorities’ inspections were judged to behaving a positive effect. Schools deemed to have serious

problems would receive additional support from their linkadviser/inspector and probably from other members of theadvisory team.

HMI and inspectionAlthough HM Inspectorate had been in place since 1839,the role of HMI, as with the local education authorityinspectors, had also changed significantly. By the early1970s, HMI were carrying out fewer local inspections thanthey had been, and were spending more time on inspec-tions at the national level – often pursuing the concerns ofMinisters or the Department of Education and Sciencethrough small surveys, based on the inspection of indi-vidual schools. These were generally short, focused inspec-tions, which were subsequently collated, with the overallfindings forming the basis of a report designed to presenta national picture of a particular aspect or subject of edu-cational provision.

During this period, the provision of advice to both theDepartment of Education and Science and local authoritieswith regard to the building of new special schools and thedevelopment of units in mainstream schools became a majorfocus of the HMI special education team’s work. Arguablythis benefited pupils, many of whom were subsequentlytaught in purpose-built accommodation designed to meet theneeds of their particular disability.

School inspection most frequently consisted of a one-dayvisit by a single inspector, culminating in a discussion withthe headteacher in which relevant issues were raised. HMIdid not, however, report on individual teachers. A ‘note ofvisit’ was written for the Inspectorate’s school file and,unless there was some special concern or interesting devel-opment, the information went no further. The school did notreceive any written outcome from the visit and usually therewas no planned inspection follow-up. Regular meetings,however, took place when HMI informed local educationauthority officers of concerns and it was anticipated thatthese would result in the local education authority takingsome form of positive action where appropriate, with a viewto the raising of standards.

Although HMI were only able to visit a small proportion ofschools – even of special schools – in any one year, andtherefore the accountability of an individual school wasconsidered very infrequently, the contribution to the educa-tional system, and therefore to the raising of standards, wasconsidered to have been significant. HMI built up a nationalpicture of the different types of provision – often through theeyes of specialists in that particular area of disability – andas a result could inform others and have their own expertiseincreased. This knowledge and experience could be sharedwith the Department of Education and Science, local edu-cation authorities and teachers on Department of Educationand Science short courses. Also, the role of HMI at this timestill had a strong advisory element, so that at the meetingwith the headteacher at the end of a visit any criticism couldbe followed by some practical suggestions as to howimprovements might be made. Although these were not

70 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 © 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN

specifically followed up, the feedback from teachers andlocal education authorities indicated that this was an accept-able and effective way of improving schools through theinspection process.

The Warnock Report and the 1981 EducationActThe Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handi-capped Children and Young People, chaired by MaryWarnock (DES, 1978), deliberated for over three yearsbefore producing their report. It has had a significant influ-ence on special education policy and practice. The Reportmade over 220 recommendations, many of which wereincluded in the Education Act 1981, which came into forceon 1 April 1983. This abolished the old categories of handi-cap (Ministry of Education, 1953) and recognised a widergroup of children – some 20% of the population at sometime during their school career – as having ‘special educa-tional needs’ (SEN). It also identified some whose needswould be so severe and complex as to require the safeguardof special procedures for assessment and provision througha Statement of Special Educational Needs. The Act madeclear the responsibilities of mainstream schools to detect,assess and provide for children with special educationalneeds, and it encouraged the process of integration and gaveincreased rights to parents. Many of these changes subse-quently became the focus for school inspections.

After WarnockAs indicated above, in the 1980s the Government took aparticular interest in the curriculum (DES, 1980, 1981,1983a, 1985) and evidence from inspection had a majorimpact on the preparation of the National Curriculum, intro-duced through the Education Reform Act 1988. However, itwas not until 1991 that a report was published specifically inrelation to pupils with special educational needs (DES,1991).

The Warnock Report’s recommendation for the integrationof children with special educational needs into mainstreamschools and the rights of parents to request ordinary schoolplacements, as enshrined in the Education Act 1981, alsobecame a focus for inspection (DES, 1989a). Several otherreports were also published at the end of the decade, con-centrating on aspects of the effectiveness of provision forparticular groups of children with special educational needs(DES, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1989e, 1989f, 1990c), updatingprevious surveys (for a list, see DES, 1973).

There had been a considerable increase in the number oflocal education authority special schools and independentschools for children with special educational needs, many ofthe latter being residential. These independent schools wereof very variable quality and the 1981 Act required them to beapproved by the Secretary of State if they were to continue tobe registered. This generated a considerable amount ofinspection by HMI, who had to devise criteria for approvingthese schools as well as carrying out the task of inspectingthem. This had the effect of raising the quality of theirprovision with regard to education, care and accommoda-tion. The curriculum often needed broadening; the staffing

levels, training and experience of care staff requiredimprovement; and accommodation needed to be brought upto the standards required by the regulations for maintainedschools. Some schools decided that they could not meet thestandards that had been set, and closed.

As a result of the Warnock Report, the curriculum and otherarrangements for children with special educational needscame under the spotlight – both in special schools and inmainstream schools.The often extreme emphasis on the threeRs was lessened, as it was recognised that all pupils had theright to a broad and balanced educational experience. Reportscommented on the provision for children with special educa-tional needs in mainstream schools in some detail, during atime when the rights of the child were being highlightednationally and ‘inclusion’ was becoming the centre of atten-tion for policy makers. An important aspect of inspectionreports was that they included a discrete section concernedwith the provision for children with special educationalneeds. From 1983, the publication of reports led to consider-ation of a school’s accountability to a much wider audience.Schools were expected to address the issues raised in thereport, although there was still little follow-up to check onthis. Inspectors, however, observed a wide range of provisionand teaching approaches which provided ideas and strategiesof good practice that could be passed on to other schoolsthrough comment and advice as well as through publications.

The inspection of samples of schools that concentrated onspecific disabilities or aspects of special education began tobecome more common. This was partly to identify goodpractice, but also to monitor the profound changes arisingfrom the Warnock Report and the subsequent legislation.Until the 1990s, many HMI reports from such surveysremained internal documents and were not published. Thus,for example, there were surveys of schools for children withautism (of which at that time there were very few) and of theRudolf Steiner schools for children with special educationalneeds, as well as of the provision for children with severespeech and language difficulties. However, the Departmentof Education and Science had previously published somepolicy documents relating to special needs issues (largelybased on HMI inspection findings) (DES, 1964, 1971,1973), followed in the 1980s by a small number of HMIpublications on subjects that had been a particular focus forthe inspections (DES, 1983b, 1986, 1988).

One significant methodological problem, however, was thatmost of the HMI surveys were conducted on very smallnumbers of schools, which could not be claimed to be rep-resentative samples. These HMI surveys never claimed to be‘research’ in the accepted academic sense, but were oftentreated as such and not infrequently became the basis ofgovernment policy.

During this period, there were three reports on servicesrelating to pupils with special educational needs (DES,1984, 1989g, 1990a) as well as a report on Portage projects(DES, 1990b). These had a considerable impact; forexample, they generated further discussion (AEP/DECP,

© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 71

1991) as well as being the focus of Department of Educationand Science short courses – then a regular feature of HMI’scontribution to in-service training.

The first annual report of the Senior Chief Inspector,requested by the Secretary of State, was issued in 1989 andgave details of the problems and achievements of the edu-cation service overall. It included a separate section onspecial educational needs, in addition to a reference to theLower Attaining Pupils’ Project (DES, 1989a).

The 1992Act and its aftermathThe inspection of schools was revolutionised as a result ofthe introduction of the National Curriculum and the Educa-tion (Schools) Act 1992. The latter resulted in the establish-ment of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED),whose slogan is ‘improvement through inspection’. Allschools, including special schools and pupil referral units,were to be inspected at least once every six years, and theresulting data would be used to ‘measure the temperature’ ofthe system, call individual schools and local educationauthorities to account and provide parents with the neces-sary information to make informed choices. As if this werenot enough to upset the equilibrium of schools in makingprovision for pupils with special educational needs, the Edu-cation Act 1993 led to more guidance published by the DfE:The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment ofPupils with Special Educational Needs (DfE, 1994; Educa-tion Act 1996) (subsequently revised in 2001 as SpecialEducational Needs Code of Practice, DfES, 2001), to whichall schools had to ‘have regard’. Furthermore, following theDisability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Special Educa-tional Needs and Disability Act 2001, schools and inspectorshad to recognise the rights of disabled pupils who may ormay not have additional special educational needs.

The new system of inspection generated considerable criti-cism with regard to its fairness, the consistency of inspec-tors’ judgements (and therefore the reliability of the data),the appropriateness of the methodology, the use of the datagenerated, and the effect upon schools and teachers before,during and after the inspection (for example, McCrone,Rudd, Blenkinsop & Wade, 2006; MacBeath, 2006;McCrone, Rudd, Blenkinsop, Wade, Rutt & Yeshhanew,2007). Since its introduction in 1993, there have been manychanges and refinements (School Inspections Act, 1996;Education Act, 1997, 2005; Education and Inspections Act,2006). In spite of the criticism, there have been some sig-nificant positive outcomes: the most obvious is that schools(including special schools) deemed to require special mea-sures because they were judged by the inspection team to beoffering an unacceptable standard of education have, in mostcases, subsequently improved – for all pupils (OFSTED,1995; Matthews & Sammons, 2004) including those withspecial educational needs (OFSTED, 2000a). In addition,good schools have had their effectiveness recognised, andthere has been a greater transparency in the making of com-parisons between schools, particularly in relation to schoolsserving similar communities or disabilities. Arguably these

outcomes have also benefited pupils with special educa-tional needs.

Since its inception, OFSTED has made serious attempts toassess the effectiveness of the new inspection system.Matthews and Sammons (2004), commissioned byOFSTED, produced a very detailed analysis of the evidenceavailable and concluded that the benefits ‘significantly out-weigh disadvantages’ and ‘are well supported by evidence’(Sammons & Matthews, 2005). They confirmed that theimpact of inspection on the performance of schools wasgreatest ‘for well-managed schools and those that causeconcern’. They also highlighted the wider impact ofOFSTED on the education system ‘with particular referenceto the contribution to policy formation, evaluation and dis-semination’. There was very little comment, however, onany particular benefits for pupils with special educationalneeds.

Since 1992, there has been a large number of OFSTEDpublications based on individual school inspections, mainlyby HMI, with approximately 30 specifically concerned withpupils or students with special educational needs. Whypublish so much – to what purpose? These publications fallinto a number of categories:

• a summary of the outcomes of inspection over aspecific period – for all pupils or for some pupils(for example, those with special educational needs),including publications concerning inclusion, post-16provision, residential provision and teacher trainingissues; these provide an overview of the system(OFSTED, 1999a, 1999b, 2002c, 2003a, 2004e,2004f, 2005b, 2005c, 2005e, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a);

• publications, based on inspections, providingguidance, information and advice on inspection andthe inspection system (OFSTED, 1999a, 2000b,2001b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003b, 2004b, 2004c, 2004e,2005d, 2005e);

• evidence of good practice for specific groups ofpupils, the curriculum or policy areas, including thecontribution of local education authority supportservices (OFSTED, 1993a, 1993b, 1996a, 1996b,1997, 1999c, 1999d, 1999e, 2000c, 2001a, 2005a,2005c, 2007b, 2007d).

One example of the latter concerned pupils with social,emotional or behavioural difficulties (SEBD), who areamong the most difficult to provide for in mainstreamschools and even in special schools and pupil referral units.However, a group of effective special schools was identifiedand HMI conducted a wide-ranging exploration of the viewsof teachers, parents, pupils, governors, local educationauthority officers and other professionals to highlight whatconstituted good practice in working with these pupils. Theresulting publication (OFSTED, 1999e) was used to dis-seminate the findings through a number of conferences forteachers and those working with children with SEBD, with aview to encouraging more ‘good practice’ (see alsoOFSTED, 2007d).

72 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 © 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN

Thus many of these publications were issued with a view toimproving the education system, and therefore raising stan-dards (along with others concerned with the actual process –OFSTED, 2000b, 2001b, 2002b, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d,2005c, 2006a, 2007b) by drawing attention to best practice,with the anticipation that this would stimulate other schoolsto achieve the same standards. However, there has been littleformal follow-up to confirm this assumption.

Where are we now?The provision for pupils with special educational needs haschanged dramatically since the 1970s, as have the arrange-ments for inspection. The inspection system has to someextent charted some of these changes within the AnnualReports of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools (forexample, OFSTED, 2001c, but see also DES, 1989g; HMI,1990; OFSTED, 1999b), as well as by focusing on particulargroups of pupils or types of school (for example, DES,1989b, 1989c; OFSTED, 2002c, 2004f).

Similarities between the old and the new arrangements

• Schools are given notice of inspections, although theamount of time has varied; the length of notice givenfor new inspections has recently been significantlyreduced in response to considerable criticism – butnot everyone is happy with only two days’ notice(MacBeath, 2006; Frederick, 2007).

• Feedback is given to the school at the end of theinspection – inspectors are now required to provide averbal first draft of what they are going to write intheir report.

• The inspectors come and go and there is no automaticfollow-up unless the school is found to be less thansatisfactory.

Positive changes

• Inspection is firmly linked to a school’sself-evaluation (early commentators on the newsystem were adamant that this should have formed thebasis of all inspections from the beginning but did not– MacBeath, 2006). All schools are required tocomplete a Self Evaluation Form (SEF), which is usedas the basis for the inspection.

• The Framework for Inspection (modified considerablyas a result of experience) gives details as to what willbe inspected and is a public document (OFSTED,2004a).

• Inspection is more frequent (again, changes have beenmade as a result of experience, but all schools receivean inspection at least every three years).

• Reports are issued within weeks of the inspection,rather than months, as was often the case before theestablishment of OFSTED.

• An attempt is made to hear the views of arepresentative group of staff, of the governing body,of parents and of pupils – contact with parents isconsiderably greater under the new arrangements and,while not fulfilling Mittler’s (2008) call for much

greater consultation with parents and children interms of the system as a whole, the inspection processhas gone some way to meeting this end.

• The report has to be parent-friendly, and a letter isalso sent to the pupils giving key messages from theinspection.

Innovations with positive and negative aspects

• The National Curriculum requirements and theassociated key stage assessment results are the mainfocus of the inspection, although non-academicaspects of provision are also inspected andcommented upon.

• Particular issues of the day are added regularly by theGovernment to the already extensive list of aspects tobe inspected and commented upon in the report –ranging from bullying, the Every Child Mattersagenda (Children Act, 2004), race equality policiesand the education of children looked after, to climatechange – resulting in reduced attention being paid totraditional subjects or aspects of the school’sfunctioning.

• All of the school’s main responsibilities and aspectsof provision are graded on a numerical scale andsubsequently publicly presented as data for makingcomparisons between schools and local authorities,creating targets, and calculating a value-added ratingfor each school. Although many critics doubt theirreliability and question their interpretation(MacBeath, 2006), these data arguably provideevidence to support the successes as well as theshortcomings of the educational system, such as thoseidentified by Mittler (2008).

Problems

• The greatly increased number of inspectors results inthe possibility of greater inconsistency of judgements.

• The reduced amount of time that inspectors spend inschools means that they spend less time in lessonsand will not usually see all teachers teaching or allgroups of pupils.

• Likewise, there is inevitably less time for evaluatingthe provision for pupils with special educational needsin mainstream schools.

• As part of the effort to make the reports moreparent-friendly, they have become much shorter thanthey were previously, with the result that references topupils with special educational needs are oftenreduced to a sentence or two. There is now no specificsection of the inspection report devoted to theprovision for these pupils.

• The combination of self-assessment and inspectionhas the potential for improving a school’seffectiveness overall, but the attention that has to begiven to specific aspects of the National Curriculum,key stage assessments and GCSE results is anadditional limitation on the time that can be given topupils with special educational needs.

© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 73

• Inspection identifies shortcomings but does notindicate how they can be addressed. Inspectors nolonger give advice as to how to make improvements,as HMI once did. This is, perhaps, the basis for themost common criticism of the new arrangementsraised by educationists: that schools are not seen to besupported by the inspection process, but merelycriticised (McNicholas, Boothroyd, Brooks &Brookes, 1999).

As a result of Government policy (DFEE, 1997, 1998), theattention given to pupils with special educational needs inthe last ten years has greatly increased. Recently, inspectionhas focused on inclusion in particular. HM Chief Inspector’sannual reports no longer have a separate section concernedwith special education or even ‘special schools and pupilreferral units’, which was the case until 2005 (OFSTED,2005f). As a result of this emphasis on inclusion, the mostrecent annual report of HM Chief Inspector (OFSTED,2007c) makes very few references specifically to pupils withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities (the new terminol-ogy), although Mittler’s (2008) concerns about pupils livingin the most disadvantaged areas are confirmed. Nonetheless,the report is somewhat upbeat about special education –80% of special schools inspected last year were rated asgood or outstanding, and pupils with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities in mainstream schools ‘make slightlybetter progress, relative to their starting points, than otherpupils’ (OFSTED, 2007c). The quality of these judgements,however, based as they are upon the very variable expertiseof the inspection teams, has to be questioned. It is far fromclear as to the extent of progress made by pupils with State-ments in mainstream schools. It is extremely difficult tomake categorical statements about the standards achieved bychildren with special educational needs, given the vast rangeof assessments used in making comparisons and their dif-ferent rationales.

Where next?It seems that school inspection is here to stay. What part,however, can it play in the overall effort to raise standards forthe 20% of pupils with special educational needs, and par-ticularly the 2.8% of pupils with the most complex needs,57% of whom are in mainstream schools? Does the presentsystem try to encompass too many objectives – monitoring,evaluating and comparing functions of schools, localauthorities and national standards? Should these be sepa-rated and carried out by different organisations and differentprocesses? Can inspection really effect change or does itmerely identify the need for change? The data gathered haveto be interpreted in relation to whether the school is doingenough or could do better, and then decisions must be made

as to what it is that the school needs to do to improve. Whatpart should the inspection team play in this? (One sugges-tion is that a member of the inspection team should ‘con-tinue to work with the school on the implementation ofthe inspection report’s recommendations’; Ofstin WorkingGroup, 1996.) Is the focus of inspection too narrow, sinceprogress, particularly for children with special educationalneeds, should embrace more than simply ‘academic’progress? Is the right amount of attention given to pupilswith particular disabilities, or should the quality of inclusionbe the essential focus of inspection in relation to pupils withspecial educational needs? (Some would argue that as far asinspection is concerned children with special educationalneeds should be given no more attention by the inspectionteam than any other pupil. However, does this ensure that allchildren are having their needs satisfactorily met?) Inevita-bly there is a disparity between the detail given about theeducation of children with special educational needs inspecial schools and those in mainstream schools – can andshould this difference be addressed through the inspectionand the reporting procedures? Should some of the importantissues identified by Mittler (2008) be added to the inspectionprogramme, such as: the relocation of pupils moving fromspecial to mainstream schools; a focus on key elementscontributing to the reduction of inequalities; transition fromschool to college or work; the degree to which promisedprovision (through Statements) is not provided? If suchissues were to be regularly included for specific inspection,additional expertise as well as extra inspection time wouldbe essential.

ConclusionTo this (perhaps biased) commentator, HMI’s influence inthe 1970s and 1980s appeared to be a beneficial one, as theysought to criticise and support schools in equal measure, aswell as disseminate good practice and advise the Govern-ment on future policy. More recently, evidence wouldsuggest that inspection has had a positive impact upon theperformance of many special schools – particularly forpupils with severe learning difficulties or profound and mul-tiple learning difficulties, and social, emotional or behav-ioural difficulties – but assessment of the education of pupilswith special educational needs in mainstream schoolsclearly suffers from lack of time and expertise, as well as alack of opportunity to report in detail. Without moreresources, the inspection system cannot focus on narrowinginequalities in provision in the way that Mittler (2008)argues is required. The jury must still be out as to whetherthe current arrangements for inspection, lacking as they doany immediate support or advice to schools, are making asignificant contribution to the raising of standards overall forthe majority of children with additional needs.

ReferencesAEP and DECP (Association of Educational

Psychologists and the Division of Educationaland Child Psychology of The British

Psychological Society) (1991) EducationalPsychology Services for the 1990s: responsesto the HMI Report. Durham and Leicester: AEPand DECP.

74 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 © 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1964) SlowLearners at School. Education Pamphlet No. 46.London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1971) SlowLearners in Secondary Schools. Education Survey 15.London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1972)Children with Specific Reading Difficulties – report ofthe Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children.London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1973)Special Education: a fresh look. Reports on EducationNo. 77. London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1978)Special Educational Needs. The Warnock Report.Cmnd 7212, London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1980)A View of the Curriculum. London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1981)Curriculum 11–16: a review of progress. London:HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1983a)Curriculum 11–16: towards a statement of entitlement.London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1983b)Young Children with Special Educational Needs –an HMI survey of educational arrangements madein 61 nurseries. London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1984) TheEducation Welfare Service – an HMI enquiry in eightLEAs. London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1985)Curriculum from 5 to 16. HMI Curriculum Matters 2.London: HMSO.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1986)Report by HM Inspectors on a Survey of Science inSpecial Education (62/86). London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1988) ASurvey of the Use Some Pupils and Students withSpecial Educational Needs Make of Museums andHistoric Buildings (4/88). London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989a)Standards in Education 1987–88. The annual report ofHM Senior Chief Inspector of Schools based on thework of HMI in England. London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989b)A Survey of Provision for Pupils with Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties in Maintained Special Schoolsand Units (62/89). London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989c)Educating Physically Disabled Pupils (110/89).London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989d)Effectiveness of Small Special Schools (279/89).London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989e)A Survey of Provision for Pupils with Special Needsin Secondary Schools in the London Borough ofRichmond upon Thames (317/89). London:DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989f)A Survey of Pupils with Special Needs in OrdinarySchools (337/89). London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1989g)A Survey of Support Services for Special EducationalNeeds (75/89). London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1990a)Educational Psychology Services in England1988–1989. HMI report 119/90/NS. London:DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1990b)Portage Projects: a survey of 13 projects funded byeducation support grants 1987–1989 (25/90). London:DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1990c)Provision for Primary Aged Pupils with Statements ofSpecial Educational Needs in Mainstream SchoolsJanuary–July 1989 (40/90). London: DES.

DES (Department of Education and Science) (1991)National Curriculum and Special Needs: preparationsto implement the National Curriculum for pupils withStatements in special and ordinary schools, 1989–90.A report by HM Inspectorate. London: HMSO.

DfE (Department for Education) (1994) The Code ofPractice on the Identification and Assessment ofPupils with Special Educational Needs. London:DfE.

DfEE (Department for Education and Employment)(1997) Excellence for All Children: meeting specialeducational needs. London: DfEE.

DfEE (Department for Education and Employment)(1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs:a framework for action. London: DfEE.

DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2001)Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. London:DfES.

Frederick, K. (2007) ‘Two days’ notice makes a mockstedof us’, Times Educational Supplement, 9 November2007.

HMI (Her Majesty’s Inspectors) (1990) EducationObserved – special needs issues. A survey by HMI.London: HMSO.

House of Commons (1968) Report of the SelectCommittee on Education and Science Session 1967–68,Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (England and Wales),2 vols. London: House of Commons.

MacBeath, J. (2006) School Inspection andSelf-Evaluation. London: Routledge.

Matthews, P. & Sammons, P. (2004) Improvement ThroughInspection: an evaluation of the impact of OFSTED’swork. HMI 2244. London: OFSTED.

McCrone, T., Rudd, P., Blenkinsop, S. & Wade, P. (2006)Impact of Section 5 Inspections: maintained schools inEngland. Windsor: NFER.

McCrone, T., Rudd, P., Blenkinsop, S., Wade, P., Rutt, S.& Yeshhanew, T. (2007) Evaluation of the Impact ofSection 5 Inspections. Windsor: NFER.

McNicholas, J., Boothroyd, C., Brooks, M. & Brookes, M.(1999) Evidence to the Select Committee on Educationand Employment. London: House of Commons.

© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 75

Mittler, P. (2008) ‘Planning for the 2040s: everybody’sbusiness’, British Journal of Special Education, 35 (1),3–10.

Ministry of Education (1953) School Health Service andHandicapped Pupils Regulations 1953. London:HMSO.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1993a)Special Needs and the National Curriculum1991–1992. London: HMSO.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1993b)Achieving Good Behaviour in Schools. London:HMSO.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1995)Inspection Quality 1994–95 – Keele University andTouche Ross. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1996a) TheImplementation of the Code of Practice for Pupils withSpecial Educational Needs. London: HMSO.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1996b)Promoting High Achievement for Pupils with SpecialEducational Needs in Mainstream Schools. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1997) SENCode of Practice: two years on – 1996/1997. HMI 23.London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1999a)Inspecting Subjects and Aspects 11–18 – specialeducational needs in ordinary schools. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1999b)Special Education 1994–1998. London: The StationeryOffice.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1999c)Pupils with Specific Learning Difficulties inMainstream Schools. HMI 208. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1999d) SENCode of Practice: three years on. HMI 211. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1999e)Principles into Practice: effective education for pupilswith emotional and behavioural difficulties. HMI 177.London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2000a)From Failure to Success: how special measures arehelping schools improve. HMI 109. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2000b)Evaluating Educational Inclusion: guidance forinspectors and schools. HMI 235. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2000c) TheNational Literacy Strategy in Special Schools1998–2000. HMI 238. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2001a)The National Numeracy Strategy in Special Schools –an evaluation of the first year. HMI 267. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2001b)Improving Inspection, Improving Schools; consultationon future arrangements for school inspection. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2001c)Standards and Quality in Education 1999–2000. TheAnnual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector ofSchools. London: The Stationery Office.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2002a) LEAStrategy for the Inclusion of Pupils with SpecialEducational Needs. E-publication HMI 737. London:OFSTED and Audit Commission.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2002b)Inspecting Provision for Learners with LearningDifficulties and/or Disabilities and for Those withSpecial Educational Needs Post-16. E-publication HMI996. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2002c)Independent Schools for Pupils with SpecialEducational Needs: review of inspections 1999–2002.HMI 785. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2003a)Special Educational Needs in the Mainstream.E-publication HMI 511. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2003b)Special Educational Needs in the Mainstream – LEApolicy and support services. E-publication HMI 556.London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004a) TheCommon Inspection Framework for InspectingEducation and Training. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004b)Setting Targets for Pupils with Special EducationalNeeds. HMI 751. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004c)From Evaluation to Improvement: judging theeffectiveness of special educational needs support inmainstream (SENIMS). Training course. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004d)Judging the Achievement of Pupils and Students withProfound and Multiple Learning Difficulties – aself-evaluation and development course for schools.London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004e)Mandatory Qualifications for Teachers of Pupilswith Sensory Impairment. HMI 2297. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004f)Special Educational Needs and Disability –towards inclusive schools. HMI 2276. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2005a)Managing Challenging Behaviour. HMI 2363. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2005b)SEN in Mainstream Schools Course. London:OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2005c)Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and outreachservices. HMI 2452. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2005d)Pupil Referral Units – briefing paper. HMI 2569.London: OFSTED.

76 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 © 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2005e)Removing Barriers: a can-do attitude. HMI 2449.London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2005f) TheAnnual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector ofSchools 2004/05. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2006a)Inspecting Boarding and Residential Provision. HMI20060028. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2006b)Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught? HMI2535. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2007a)Current Provision and Outcomes for 16- to 18-year-oldLearners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilitiesin Colleges. HMI 2371. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2007b)Pupil Referral Units – establishing successful practicein pupil referral units and local authorities. HMI070019. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2007c) TheAnnual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector ofEducation, Children’s Services and Skills 2006/07.London: The Stationery Office.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2007d)Developing Social, Emotional and Behavioural Skills inSecondary Schools. HMI 070048. London: OFSTED.

Ofstin Working Group (1996) Improving SchoolInspection: an account of the Ofstin Conference, NewCollege, Oxford, 19–21 June 1996 (quoted in Dunford,1998).

Sammons, P. & Matthews, P. (2005) MemorandumSubmitted to the Select Committee on Education andSkills. Minutes of Evidence, January 2005. London:Houses of Parliament.

Wilcox, B., Gray, J. & Tranmer, M. (1993) ‘LEAframeworks for the assessment of schools: aninterrupted picture’, Educational Research, 35 (2),211–221.

Address for correspondence:Chris Marshallnasen4/5 Amber Business VillageAmber CloseAmingtonTamworth B77 4RPEmail: welcome@nasen.org.uk

Manuscript submitted: December 2007Accepted for publication: March 2008

© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 35 · Number 2 · 2008 77