We move on to our discussion of quality and standards in primary and post-primary schools. I welcome the chief inspector at the Department of Education and Skills, Dr. Harold Hislop. His report covering the period 2010 to 2012 which was recently launched by the Minister provides details of the quality of education in primary and second level schools and centres for education and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the primary and post-primary education systems. I invite Dr. Hislop to make his presentation.
Quality and Standards in Schools: Chief Inspector at Department of Education and Skills
Dr. Harold Hislop
My colleagues and I are very grateful for the invitation to appear before the joint committee to discuss the chief inspector's report for the period 2010 to 2012. I am joined by Mr. Gary Ó Donnchadha, deputy chief inspector; Dr. Suzanne Dillon, assistant chief inspector and head of our evaluation and research unit; and Ms Emer Egan and Ms Doreen McMorris, assistant chief inspectors who each manage one of the inspectorate regions where most of our evaluation and inspection work is carried out.
I propose to focus on the main issues arising from the report. A particularly strong theme is the very significant changes that have taken place in the way we inspect schools. Rather than inspect all schools in exactly the same way, as we did in the past, we have, in the period covered by the report, developed different models of inspection. These range from short unannounced inspections that take less than a day to inspections where we focus on a particular subject or theme through to much more intense and lengthier models whereby we examine the whole workings of a school. Using this range of inspection types has allowed us to inspect a greater number of schools more frequently. An inspection of some sort took place in half of all primary schools in the 2010 to 2012 period covered by the report. In the same period we carried out some form of inspection in 93% of secondary schools. Having a range of inspection reports means that we can target a proportion of the more detailed inspections in schools where an earlier visit or inspection showed some cause for concern.
A second point to highlight is that we have changed the focus of the inspections. They are now much more concentrated on observing teaching and learning in classrooms and providing feedback for individual teachers and the principal. We do not seek to examine all aspects of the work of the school. Instead, we concentrate on asking questions and examining evidence on how well the school is run and the quality of the teaching and learning. We collect evidence about the general standards we see, which has enabled us to present that information in a systematic way via the report. We include information on standards in teaching, learning and the management of schools. Moreover, we have combined these data with national and international data from surveys in which Ireland has participated.
I am pleased to say the inspections we conducted between 2010 and 2012 generally show a positive picture for most schools. At a time when the education system was facing a considerable challenge, we found that the majority of schools were well run by their boards of management, which are staffed by volunteers. Many schools provided good leadership; most teachers were working effectively and students' learning was generally satisfactory. However, we also identified areas of weakness. For example, we saw unsatisfactory practice in a significant minority of individual lessons. Specifically, between 10% and 15% of the lessons we observed in unannounced inspections at primary and post-primary level were categorised as unsatisfactory. We raised particular concerns about the teaching of Irish at both primary and post-primary levels, the language competence of teachers in Irish in a small minority of cases and the teaching of mathematics at post-primary level. We have detailed these concerns in the report and the briefing notes circulated to members and will be happy to discuss them further.
An objective we had for the period 2010 to 2012 was to incorporate the views of parents and students into inspections in a much clearer and more robust way. A large sample of students and parents now complete confidential questionnaires during the time we conduct a whole-school inspection. These give us very detailed information on a range of aspects of the work of the school which we include in the report. We found a very positive view among parents of the quality of the schooling their children received. More than 97% of the 47,000 parents included in the surveys of primary schools were of the view that the teaching their child was receiving was good. Some 87% of the 20,000 parents surveyed at post-primary level were likewise satisfied with the teaching their child received. However, the data also raised questions for schools regarding their communication with parents, its effectiveness and otherwise, especially on how anti-bullying measures were communicated to parents and students.
All of the statistical data from the confidential questionnaires are fed back to schools and we encourage them to examine the information in detail and reflect on the message it contains for the school and its teachers. That is what good self-evaluation is all about. Effective organisations, be they schools, hospitals, voluntary organisations or businesses, must always be asking questions about how well they are conducting their core business and searching for ways to improve. Traditionally, schools have not been doing this to the extent we would like. That is why we are encouraging self-evaluation to complement inspection. Inspection provides a necessary external perspective on the work of a school, but it must be balanced by good thinking within the school if improvements are to be achieved. We have published self-evaluation guidelines to help schools to do this. Between November 2012 and January 2014 we made advisory workshop visits to more than 4,000 primary and post-primary schools to encourage that process.
My final point relates to our own role and functions.
We are no different from schools or other organisations. We know we have to change and continue to improve if we are to remain effective. We introduced follow-up inspections to ensure the recommendations we make are actually implemented by schools. The details of these are included in the report.
We have developed a number of further initiatives to improve how we inspect schools and provide better reports for parents and schools. We are examining how to involve students more fully in the inspection process. We have begun to conduct pilot post-evaluation surveys among teachers and principals - to begin with - in which they are asked about how well we conduct inspections and advisory work within their schools. We will extend these surveys to boards of management and parents' councils. We hope the feedback we will receive will help us in improving the way we inspect and evaluate schools. We are learning many lessons from our participation in North-South projects conducted in conjunction with the inspectorate in Northern Ireland and also from work in which we have been involved at OECD level on inspection and quality systems across schools.
I hope my comments will be of assistance to the committee in its discussions. We will be happy to discuss the issues to which I have referred or any other matter to which members may wish to refer.
Given that they will be obliged to leave soon, I will take contributions from the Senators present because I understand they have to be elsewhere.
I thank Dr. Hislop for his presentation. I am my party's education spokesperson in the Seanad and I have a major interest in this extremely wide-ranging area.
I compliment our guests on their very detailed report which makes for excellent reading and contains some fantastic recommendations. Will they expand on the position on self-evaluation? I was a teacher for many years and witnessed what happened in school and subject evaluations. Schools are notified of evaluations perhaps three or four weeks before they occur. All normal activity stops in order that everything can be made ready. Floors that were never previously mopped are suddenly cleaned. Everything is made rosy for the arrival of the inspectors. In the light of the huge competition in the context of the points race for third level and self-evaluation, every school will naturally want to provide the best impression possible. In that context, it is welcome that the inspectorate is introducing confidential questionnaires for parents and pupils. It is extremely important for students that the process in this regard remain confidential. There should be a similar process for teachers in order that they might comment on things that are happening on a confidential basis. I would love this to be implemented. Naturally, teachers can be afraid to come forward.
The concept of follow-up inspections to which Dr. Hislop referred is brilliant. How effective have such inspections proved to be and what percentage of schools of schools have followed up on recommendations made by the inspectorate?
As I live near the Border, I am, therefore, interested in the North-South aspect. I conducted some thesis research on the subject I taught, music. That research contemplated music technology and the quality of the teaching of the subject, North and South. How does this jurisdiction compare with the North in the teaching of this subject and whole-school evaluations? How can we build on what has already been done in this regard? Earlier today the Seanad engaged in a debate on the importance of the Teaching Council of Ireland. Having a regulatory body such as the council in place ensures people sending their children to school know that they will receive the best education from fully licensed professionals. What is the way forward in this regard?
There are many other questions which I could pose, but I will leave it at that for now.
Am I correct in stating the Senator is obliged to go?
I do. I am really sorry.
As I must also leave, I will be brief.
I bow to the superior knowledge of Senator Mary Moran of this matter. My worst memory of primary school is of the days on which the cigire would visit. We were specially tutored, told to ensure our answers were correct and expected to be on our best behaviour. I never recall seeing an inspector during my secondary school days. I presume inspections took place, but we never saw those responsible for carrying them out.
On discipline and anti-bullying initiatives, I have been contacted by many individuals who have informed me that they would rather transfer their children to different schools than deal with the problem of bullying head on. They reported that their children were being bullied but no action was taken. I asked whether they would report the teachers involved and they informed me that they would not because their children would be victimised. I am aware of numerous instances in which people transferred their children to different schools. Is there any way we might establish a decent anti-bullying policy in schools?
I should have taken questions from spokespersons first, but I made an exception in this instance because the Senators are obliged to leave. I am taking them in the order in which they indicated a desire to contribute.
I am in no hurry to get to the Seanad Chamber for the debate on greyhound racing.
Does the Senator wish to wait her turn then?
I can ask my questions now if Dr. Hislop wishes to take them all together and if Deputy Charlie McConalogue does not object.
That is fine.
Is evaluation ever of any use if it is announced in advance? What lessons have been learned from the experience in Northern Ireland and will Dr. Hislop provide one or two examples in this regard?
In the context of what Senator Mary Moran stated, why are there so few inspections of the teaching of the arts? Some 783 inspections took place of the teaching of Irish, 700 of English and 800 of mathematics. We are very far behind the curve in the development of drama and music as core curriculum subjects in both primary and secondary schools. What is the standard in the inspections carried out in schools of the teaching of drama and the visual arts? How does Dr. Hislop feel about the fact that we still cannot get matters right in respect of either Irish or mathematics? Where problems arise, they do so in the case of these subjects.
The report is brilliant, but it shows up major communication discrepancies with regard to parental involvement in the choosing of subjects for the leaving certificate examination. When parents were asked a question on whether schools regularly sought their views on school matters, 32% indicated that they disagreed, while 24% responded that they did not know. This means that 56% were not in agreement, which is very serious. When asked whether schools' parents' associations kept them informed, some 28% of parents indicated that they disagreed, while 20% responded that they did not know. That means that some 48% were in disagreement. Only 58% of students indicated that they had received helpful advice from teachers at key transition points in their school careers, which means that 42% had not received such advice. That is a serious problem, particularly as such advice can set students on a particular path. The report states, "Overall, one of the weakest areas of teachers' practice was their use of assessment ... and their efforts to differentiate the teaching and learning activities to suit varying learning needs and abilities of students". Will Dr. Hislop comment on this matter?
I am particularly concerned about the arts in education. We consistently capitulate on the teaching of the arts, although I accept the importance of teaching the three Rs.
However, that is done to the detriment of developing drama, language, literacy and oracy skills. I do not mean that all students should take part in a school play; rather, I mean the idea of oracy, expression, orality and movement. Music is different because it is a leaving certificate subject. I would like the witnesses to speak about that. I thank the witnesses for their input. I enjoyed the report, having been in involved in this area for 30 years.
Dr. Harold Hislop
I may pass some of the questions to my colleagues to address. Both Senators mentioned the notice period for inspections. In the course of the preparation of the report we substantially cut the notice period. Traditionally, virtually all inspections were notified, but we have now introduced unannounced inspections. The majority of the inspections are unannounced. The announced ones are very short ones generally. We have also used them not only for single-day visits to primary and post-primary schools but where there are high categories of risk for students. Inspections of high-support units and special care units for children, for instance, are unannounced visits even though they are more detailed inspections. However, there are times when notice needs to be given of an inspection. We have cut the notice given, but if we were to meet a board of management, which is made up of volunteers, it would be necessary to give some notice. If we were to meet a focus group of parents we would need to give them reasonable notice in order to meet them and talk to them at length. We would want to meet most members of the board of management, if possible, during an inspection and a reasonable number of the members of a focus group of parents. There is a balance to be struck here having regard to the advantages of the authenticity of an unannounced inspection, where we see what life is really like on the day we arrive, and that has been a really important part of our inspection processes in the last three years. Although teachers initially reacted against it, to some extent, they prefer it because it is less stressful for them too. It is less stressful waiting for the inspection if one knows there is going to be one. Having very large numbers of unannounced inspections allowed us to go into schools and see the reality of what is happening there and then make a choice as to whether we think there is something that requires a deeper investigation with a longer inspection model. Quite a proportion of the announced inspections are arising and being planned because we have seen something that has worried us at an earlier unannounced visit. Combining the two processes is useful for us.
A question was asked about student questionnaires and teacher questionnaires. The student questionnaires and the parent questionnaires have been successful for us. They are confidential. They are read mechanically and the data are provided back in statistical form to both the inspection team and the parents. We have started to experiment with teacher questionnaires as well. I will ask Dr. Suzanne Dillon to explain what is involved there. We have put them in on a pilot basis only because we are doing work to get the questions right and to get at the issues that are most useful in those questionnaires.
Follow-up inspections were also mentioned. They take place with only a day's or two days' notice. A telephone call would be made to say that we want to see the principal, perhaps the senior management of the school or the chairperson or the board of management plus the principal. We need to give at least a day or a day and a half's notice of that. We have been pleased with the results. The years 2012 and 2013 were the first years we have been doing these systematically. In general, we found that of the recommendations we had made in earlier reports - based on a sample of a number of hundreds - between 80% and 90% of them had been fully or partially addressed by the school. That is quite a high proportion. This was done at time when follow-up inspections were not expected. We found that once we started these inspections the school authorities said they knew we would be back or the chances were that we would be back. That has made people sharpen up. Perhaps Dr. Suzanne Dillon would like to add a further comment on the teacher questionnaires.
Dr. Suzanne Dillon
There is not an awful lot more to add other than that we are piloting them. They have been met very well by the system and there is a high participation rate among teachers, of the order of 68% to 72%. The nature of the pilot phase is that we are testing the question set that we offer. Through the pilot phase we have revised the question set, and starting in February we are running a new set of questions. To ensure we give teachers the opportunity to tell us what they want to tell us, we have included an open comment box and it will be interesting to see what comments we get. Because this is the pilot phase of the questionnaires, they do not inform the evaluations that they accompany because we are using them as an instrument to test the question set and the administration of the questionnaires - the process by which we do that. I am the sole owner of the data that comes in and I have a look at it but, as a courtesy to schools, once the report is issued we will send the school an aggregated report on what its teachers have been saying about it.
Dr. Harold Hislop
When they are fully introduced they will form part of the evidence base, but not in the trial period. I will ask Ms Doreen McMorris to answer the questions about the North-South experience.
Ms Doreen McMorris
One of the Senators asked what we had learned from North. Perhaps the best way can answer that in the short time available is to explain how we go about that. We have a close association with the Education and Training Inspectorate, ETI, in the North. That association has been built up over a number of years. We work with it in a number of ways. Since 2008 we have engaged in exchanges with the inspectorate in the North. By an exchange I mean that one of our people goes to the North and accompanies or shadows an inspector in the North and learns how they go about their business because they are doing the same job, albeit using different approaches. We find that hugely valuable and we have covered a number of different subject areas over the years since 2008 and also broader areas such as leadership, management and so on. In return a Northern inspector comes here and accompanies our inspectors. We also engage in joint inspections with inspectors in the North. For example, we have inspected a centre for autism in recent years, and a report was published to which our inspectors contributed. We have engaged also in projects such as Dissolving Boundaries, of which members may have heard. That involved a good deal of joint inspection work with our people. Most recently, we have had an inspector from the North work with us here in a further education college, an agricultural college. We are examining how we can use our links with the inspectorate in the North to meet skills gaps on either side within the inspectorate. As our people work closely with the inspectors in the other jurisdiction we learn of other ways of doing the same work. We find it very useful and our experiences have led the chief inspectorate to commit to participating in similar engagements with the inspectorate in Scotland and Wales. We are building on the successful experience we have had. We have regular communications a few times a year at senior management level in the two inspectorates. We have joint meetings - the most recent one was in Dublin - where members of the management of the Northern inspectorate come down and meet us. It took place on 22 January, if I have the date right. They have also attended our annual conference. We have had exchanges at various continuing professional development activities for inspectors. For example, the Gaeltacht course we provide for our inspectors has involved inspectors from the North. It is by those means that we try to learn as much as we can from what happens in the North.
Does Dr. Hislop have a further comment to add?
Dr. Harold Hislop
Two Senators raised the issue of anti-bullying measures, and I would like if we might address those.
Ms Doreen McMorris
I will address those. The report shows quite a few findings that are of concern in regard to bullying.
Perhaps the most striking one is the very high proportion of parents who indicate that they do not know whether they are happy with how schools deal with bullying. That is to a level of 25% at both primary and post-primary level. We find out about bullying when we go into schools in a number of ways. We obviously use questionnaires but we also raise issues around bullying at meetings and in the course of the inspection activity while inspectors are in the school. Building on what is in the report that covered the period to 2012, which members have, we have made some changes to the questionnaire. Since January of this year we have focused the questions around bullying in a clearer way so that in future inspections we will get even better information on how parents and students consider the school to be performing on bullying and discipline and how safe students are in school.
Members will be aware that within the last year the Minister has implemented new procedures for schools in terms of anti-bullying policies. The requirements for schools in that regard will be part of our inspection processes as we move forward. Schools are expected to have procedures in place by the end of this term that are similar to the child protection policy. This whole area of bullying is one around which none of us can be in any way complacent. The TIMMS survey does show that Ireland has a lower incidence of bullying than comparable countries. That is something to bear in mind when we look at the issues around bullying in schools.
Dr. Harold Hislop
One of the interesting things from the pupil questionnaires and student questionnaires is the extent to which Irish students feel safe in schools. There are very high percentages there – often over 90%. What is really interesting is when the questionnaire data comes in for an individual school, if that is significantly lower than we would expect normally, we would immediately say to the school that it might think it is dealing well with bullying but there is clear evidence that it needs to go back and go through its anti-bullying lessons and make sure that children know who to talk to and who to report bullying to. It can be quite a shock sometimes for a school because when we interview those involved they say the school has an excellent anti-bullying policy and it is doing an excellent job on that but when we get the data they throw up a completely different set of questions.
The issue of school self-evaluation was raised by Senator Moran. I will ask Mr. Ó Donnchadha to talk about it in a bit more detail. Self-evaluation is very much a process that is owned by the school itself. It is a whole attitude of asking questions about how one is doing one’s own work internally as a group of teachers, a principal and a board, and if they are doing the job they should be doing and getting the best results for the children. Very often, what we see is that schools traditionally have not been asking those hard questions of themselves. We can come and ask the hard questions as an external set of eyes, and it is really important that we do that, but the change will happen if schools own the change and want to make the change. If they can identify areas in which they are strong or weak and they tackle the weaknesses then one has an organisation that is on the move. That is what self-evaluation is about.
Senator Moran made a very good point about the public nature of that and the competition that schools face. The published report, or the report that is public, is not the most important part; it is the honest questions that the schools ask internally and the data they look at. Mr. Ó Donnchadha can talk about the data in more detail.
Do parents get to see the self-evaluation report?
Dr. Harold Hislop
Yes.
Mr. Gary Ó Donnchadha
I thank Senator Moran for raising the issue. She had an eye to the future. A really robust quality assurance system must have both effective mechanisms within the school or organisation and robust mechanisms outside such as can be provided by external inspection. That is why since 2012 we have been investing a lot of effort in giving schools the tools for effective and robust self-review. We have launched very detailed guidelines and a standard cycle for reviewing teaching and learning in all schools, and we took a decision to invest some of our own inspection time in improving skills in the system with regard to school self-evaluation. Between November 2012, when we started on school self-evaluation, and now, we have visited 3,700 of the 4,000 schools in the system to speak directly to every teacher about school self-evaluation, because early on the school principals said to us in consultation that they are the converted. Embedding high-quality, robust self-evaluation requires that every teacher understands the concept and knows where to access the tools, and that there is a buy-in to the school's engagement with us. We have conducted universal coverage of the school system to make sure there is no doubt in the system that we have an expectation that effective school self-evaluation will be commenced in schools. It will take time because this has to embed itself in the management, organisation and life of the school itself. We envisage that in the next four, five or six years the balance between external inspection and the internal quality review - the school looking at its own assessment, outcomes data and practice - will work towards a complementary quality assurance mechanism.
None of my questions has been answered so far.
Dr. Harold Hislop
I will respond to the questions about arts education. Senator O’Donnell is correct that the report spends most of its time looking at Irish, English and mathematics standards in schools. That was simply because of the length of the report. In whole-school evaluations in primary schools we inspect usually about four subjects in detail: Irish, English - or Irish or English; it might be one or both of those - mathematics and another subject. The arts subjects – music, visual arts and drama - are on a cycle of subjects and we have conducted inspections in those. They are not reported on in detail in the chief inspector’s report.
Or generally.
Dr. Harold Hislop
We have done reports on some aspects of those. We have done general reports on arts education. Now that we have put in place the systems for collecting the quality data that we have for literacy, numeracy and Irish, we will publish on the other subjects in more detail as well. We intend to have both good practice guides and reports on the standards in the other subjects. There simply was not room in the chief inspector's report this time to do it.
Senator O’Donnell referred also to the weakness with regard to assessment. We point to the weakness of assessment. We have seen a lot of evidence right the way across teachers’ practice. The weakest area of teachers’ practice is assessment. That arises for a number of reasons, partly because it has not been an issue that has been treated in a great deal of depth in the initial teacher education to date. More recently, it has become a more important part of the teacher education programmes. The Teaching Council has been overseeing the implementation of those in the colleges of education and in university education departments, but it has not been a major aspect of the courses. While teachers have used standardised and other tests that have been made available to them, we see them getting little or limited information to inform their teaching. They administer the tests and record test results but there has not been a systematic practice of examining the assessment data as to what that means for the way they should change teaching and learning. That is what we are trying to get them to do in the self-evaluation process. If particular aspects of the teaching of a subject - for example, the elements of art - are not coming across strongly when they look at children’s work, if there is not progression in art - we would say that there is not-----
Or Irish.
Dr. Harold Hislop
Yes, in any of the subjects.
Or maths.
Dr. Harold Hislop
I am using art simply as a subject but if individual aspects are coming up as weaker areas of practice, they should address those by changing the way they teach or putting more emphasis on those areas. That is what we want to do.
In one way the chief inspector is right to have self-assessment of the system in the schools yet the internal assessment within the subject practice is weak. It is a gap, and I saw it in the-----
Dr. Harold Hislop
Yes, and we hope that by highlighting these issues we change practice. There are several subjects at post-primary level, for instance, on which we have published detailed reports, including music. In that regard there is both good practice and what we call traps that schools should be wary of falling into, particular traps or areas of weakness.
We have only ten minutes remaining. I will take the last questions.
I thank the chief inspector and his team for coming in today. I accept we are short on time but the chief inspector mentioned that 10% to 15% of lessons were unsatisfactory. I ask Dr. Hislop to elaborate on that.
Dr. Hislop also mentioned Irish language competence at primary level. I would appreciate more of his thoughts in that regard.
If Dr. Hislop does not have time to answer this question he might revert to me on it. Regarding competence in mathematics at second level, I would like to hear Dr. Hislop's comments on Project Maths in particular.
On the question of whole-school evaluation versus self-evaluation, have all schools done a self-evaluation at this stage and how often are they required to do it? Has there been a drop-off in the whole-school inspections in recent years? How many of those have been done? How is the chief inspector's team staffed in terms of its capacity to carry out whole-school inspections with the number of inspectors he has working with him?
Curriculum overload is an issue we hear from teachers as being a problem, particularly at primary level. Will Dr. Hislop comment on that?
Regarding in-service teacher training, I would like to hear Dr. Hislop's comments in terms of the forthcoming reform of the junior certificate. What are his views on the level of in-service training provided or planned in that regard, and the sufficiency of it? It is particularly relevant in light of his comment on the issue of assessment, which in his estimation is one of the weaker parts of the skill base of the teaching profession. I raise that because there are plans that the junior certificate student award would be assessed by the teachers. I would like further comment from Dr. Hislop on that.
Does the chief inspector have a role in assessing the career guidance provision at second level? Surveys have been done by the careers guidance association, for example, that show that the one to one time between career guidance teachers and pupils has been halved.
Will Dr. Hislop comment on the facility database in the Department of Education and Skills? Does he have the opportunity to utilise information from that? That is particularly relevant in terms of careers guidance. I put down a parliamentary question recently asking for the total hours provided by career guidance teachers in each school across the country. I understand that information is provided by schools to the Department, which then inputs it into the facility database. It should be extractable, therefore, but the response I got from the Department was that it is not its policy to use the facility to extract that type of information. I would have thought that is important, especially-----
I have to stop the Deputy as we have only three minutes remaining.
I wish to make two points. In the area of self-evaluation, I take it that the entire school community would be involved in that - parents, teachers and pupils. I seek clarification on that.
Will Dr. Hislop give us more information on what the detailed school inspections entail? Would the inspectors look at the provision of special education within a school? Would they inspect that as a separate issue? Does Dr. Hislop have any information on the way schools are performing in that area? Does it come down to a lack of resources or a lack of qualifications? Does Dr. Hislop have any information on that?
I do not mean to be flippant but who inspects the inspectors?
I want to record that it is regrettable we are rushing this discussion.
We had two items on our agenda, but these schedules are sent out months in advance to members.
I know but I want to register my protest officially. The record will show that I requested that the chief inspector be invited to come before the committee and I resent the fact that I have only two or three minutes to ask some questions.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh na finnéithe agus gabhaim buíochas leo as ucht teacht isteach inniu. I spoke previously with the chief inspector about the teaching of the Irish language. I know it has been addressed already and, unfortunately, we have to rush now and therefore we will not get to have the discussion I was hoping to have.
Everybody is happy with the boards of management process in that it is acceptable and it works but where a difficulty arises or a parent has a problem with a board of management, does the inspectorate have a role in that regard? From what I can see the process seems to involve going around in circles from the board to the patron but the Department is keen to wash its hands of it. Everything is devolved, but it has also absolved everybody of their responsibility. I am curious to know the role of the inspectorate in regard to boards of management. Has Dr. Hislop dealt with complaints from parents about decisions by boards of management? Does he have a function in that area?
Related to that is the role of the Ombudsman for Children. I discovered recently that almost half of the 9,000 complaints to the ombudsman related to education. Does the inspectorate have a connection with the ombudsman or an input in that? Is there a two-way feeding system, so to speak, between the ombudsman and the inspectorate to address issues that arise?
The chief inspector mentioned twice the voluntary aspect of boards of management, which I accept and we all appreciate, but it is not a reason for having a hands-off approach, especially with the way boards have been in the news of late in terms of transparency and openness, and challenging boards. Teaching teachers is very important, and boards have a huge role to play in the educational well-being of any school and the population of that school. However, there is a huge appetite among parents with children in the school, and I know not all board members are parents, to contribute to the school, and people are willing to come on board in that regard. We can sometimes take a hands-off approach because it is voluntary.
On teaching the teachers, do the witnesses have an input into courses such as instructional leadership - they may not even be aware of them - carried out formerly by the Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, now the Education and Training Boards Ireland, ETBI? Do they have an input into the training of teachers?
Dr. Harold Hislop
I will work from the bottom of my list of questions if I may. The instructional leadership programme has begun in many of what were the Cork vocational educational committees. We have had close links with it and some inspectors are involved in both the programme itself and helping to support that programme. While we do not run it we are very much aware of it, and we see the good outcomes of it in the leadership skills it gives to principals in many schools. It has done some very good work. Some of us would have spoken at some of their conferences and training programmes at different times in the past.
The leadership of the school is a critical factor in the quality of the self-evaluation and the attitude to improving. The implementation of the curriculum in general is dependent on the attitude of the principal of the school. We spend quite a lot of time in inspections as well looking at the quality of that leadership, asking the right questions and prompting that leadership to move on and to challenge the work that leader is doing but also the work they are doing with their teachers.
On the voluntary nature of the boards of management, I mentioned that because people who serve on boards of management do extraordinary public service.
They operate and run the system without the local education authorities that would exist in many other countries. That therefore is the reason that when we evaluate the work, we are conscious they are volunteers with different sets of skills, some having very rich skill sets and others having more limited skill sets. There are training programmes which the management authorities provide, paid for by the Department, to help upskill those people. However, this does not obviate the need for the board to actually run the school. We are absolutely clear on that. We make our judgments on how effectively the school is run and how effectively the board is carrying out its duties. Some of these are down to setting and signing off on general policy and making sure they are implemented. However, in self-evaluation we perceive a really important role for the board to want to know from the principal and senior teachers what are the results the children are getting in the school concerned. Questions such as whether the children are getting better, whether there are categories of students who are doing well or not doing well, what groups within the huge population that can be in a secondary school actually are making progress or what percentages of students are taking higher level rather than ordinary level are legitimate questions for a board to ask. Moreover, it can be really important support for the principal if the board is seen to ask those questions and to be interested in them.
Deputy McConalogue also asked about the numbers of inspections and self-evaluation and if I might ask Mr. Gary Ó Donnchadha to respond.
Mr. Gary Ó Donnchadha
Briefly, the Deputy asked about the number of inspectors and so on and whether our capacity was sufficient. Like all other public services, we certainly were affected by reductions in our numbers. Our numbers fell from approximately 166 staff towards the end of the noughties down to 116 staff. While there was quite a substantial drop, our focus was on getting the highest impact from the staff resource we had. Many of the reforms about which members read in the chapter in the chief inspector's report on the reconfiguration of our inspection have pertained to getting the highest impact we can from the available staff resources. Fortunately, our numbers have risen a little with the sanction we have received lately for recruitment and at present, our staff number is approximately 124 inspectors.
I mentioned the school self-evaluation initiative earlier and we took a decision to scale down slightly whole school evaluations. Consequently, our numbers at primary level are slightly down in order to be able to cover all 3,300 primary schools with a school self-evaluation support visit. However, these numbers will come back up again in future years. The other point members will note in the report is that through using this blend of unannounced visits and whole school evaluations, we have a much higher footprint in schools than we have ever had. Our current rate of coverage is approximately one in six years at primary level and one in two to three years at post-primary level, which constitutes a significant improvement on the coverage we were able to get in previous years when we were relying simply on a whole school inspection model to try to cover the country. This twin-track approach of coverage on the one hand and targeting resources using short-form inspections is working very well for us to get coverage.
Dr. Harold Hislop
If I may, I will address the questions raised by Deputy McConalogue regarding continuing professional development, CPD, for teachers and the junior cycle. The Minister's decisions to implement the new junior cycle framework and the roll-out of the individual subject have of course created a big demand for teacher in-service training. Most such training will be focused, in the second and third years of it, on the assessment. That is the design of the in-service training that has been worked out. The initial sessions for teachers in the year prior to the implementation of each subject mainly pertain to the content of the syllabus but those sessions in year one and year two, as assessment becomes a reality for teachers, are mainly about assessment. Where they are into the first year of roll-out but prior to the second year, when assessment by teachers will take place, that year's in-service training will be mainly about the skills of assessment. These skills, which will be transferable to CPD, also will be bolstered by the guides to assessment produced by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, that is, by the resource pack of assessment materials the NCCA would produce. Moreover, the State Examination Commission, SEC, will continue to produce the examination paper for use at the end, as well as the marking schemes. Unlike many countries that simply transferred completely to a teacher-based assessment model, the decision here appears to have been a much more nuanced one. While we are moving to a much more teacher-based assessment, it is being supported and framed much more comprehensively than many other countries would have done.
I must stop Dr. Hislop there, as another meeting has been scheduled for this room.
Before the meeting concludes, may I have an answer to my question on special education?
While the witnesses may respond to that question, they might revert to the Deputies and Senators in respect of any outstanding issues.
Mr. Gary Ó Donnchadha
I will make one comment in respect of special educational needs, because this is an important question. Evaluating the quality of provision for special educational needs students in schools is one of the most important strands of the work we do and is part of all of our whole school evaluations. The chief inspector's report contains reports on quality and standards in the provision for especially students. It highlights good or very good practice in the majority of schools but again, highlights there are challenges in 10% to 15% of settings. Again, some challenges related to a point raised by Senator O'Donnell about assessment. The really good use of individual education plans and really good engagement in terms of the progression of students can be a challenge for some teachers and schools. We work hard on providing advice in respect of that.
I seek a one-line response on who inspects the inspectors.
Dr. Harold Hislop
That is a fair question. We have been part of the evaluation the Department of the Taoiseach undertook of the Department as a whole under the organisational review programme, ORP, scheme. We were completely reviewed and all of our documentation and so on formed part of that review. In addition, we benchmark ourselves against international practice. We are members of the Standing International Conference of Inspectorates and participate in its programmes. We can compare our materials with what goes on in other countries. It is part of the reason we have linkages with the North of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, internationally across Europe, it is really important for us to benchmark ourselves against that. This also was part of the reason we participated in the OECD project that ran for the past four years on how one conducts evaluation and assessment across an educational system, including in-school assessment, self-evaluation, inspection and the other methods one can use.
I had two questions that were not answered. May I note them in order that the responses can be forwarded to me?
Yes, the Deputy should do so.
One concerned the role of the inspectorate in complaints about the board of management and the other concerned the role of the ombudsman and liaison but the answers can be forwarded.
If Deputy McConalogue has outstanding questions, he should provide a brief list. Alternatively, he can refer them to me or to the clerk and we will conclude. While I note Deputy Jim Daly's point regarding the meeting's length, obviously the schedule went out as a draft to all members. That really is an opportunity to flag the possibility that not enough time has been allocated to a single topic.
I did not get an answer to the question I asked of Ms Doreen McMorris. I was told what the inspectorate did with its Northern Ireland equivalent but not what it learned. Perhaps the witnesses might revert to me on that issue.
Dr. Harold Hislop
Yes, certainly.
There were a few other questions too. However, I will send them to the inspectorate, if that is all right.
Dr. Harold Hislop
Yes, absolutely. We would welcome that.
I will follow that up.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 February 2014.