What happens when children inspect their own school?

So how did this begin? I think the whole idea first started many years ago when I was a NQT working in Bethnal Green, where I quickly learned that generally all children are fair, perceptive and always knew who the best teachers were and why! Even though their education language was simplistic - i.e. 'we like her/him because they are fun or strict'. I realised the children were my best critical friends, always happy to tell me (and others!) when my lessons were good and not so good and why...

Many years later…whilst I was head at Caversham Primary School, Reading we had three Ofsted inspections. The first inspection was fine and the report accurately described our school, but the second was a very different story. The staff, governors and I were very clear that we were by then an outstanding school and our SEF clearly demonstrated this. The lead inspector took a different view and thought we were good overall with outstanding aspects. It was one of the first 'light-touch' inspections, which meant they were with us for just two days. We argued our corner and formally complained, but to no avail. However, we just knew the inspectors hadn't got us right.

So I began to think of a different way of replying to, what we thought to be, a flawed Ofsted judgement. That's when I realised the answer lay with the children themselves - as it so often does. I had trained as an Ofsted inspector and thought of how I could train up the children to check the school out. Who better than the clients themselves to decide how good a school we were and what we could do better? It was a natural extension of our School Council and its role.

I quickly enlisted the help of our school improvement partner, also a Lead Inspector, to help me to teach the children the 'Ofsted language' and to give them some insight into the framework, particularly on such matters as lesson observation grades and school data. The inspection team were junior members of School Council (Y3-6) plus extra volunteers from our Y6 classes. The pre-inspection training naturally soon opened up some very interesting dialogue about what outstanding teaching and lessons looked like and why; what an unsatisfactory lesson looked like, why and so on. Discussions with the pupils about how you could make judgements on learning and behaviour management when it wasn't your class teacher or classroom, and what constituted evidence and what didn't, was very interesting.

Although the children were recording judgements on the quality of learning and not teaching, they began to understand how learning might be influenced by the quality of the teaching. I particularly remember being asked by a Y5 pupil what she should do, if on the inspection day the learning was good and so was the teaching, when she knew it wasn't always so!

My colleague and I also trained the team to look at pupils' work in a critical manner in displays and books, and to think about how effective or not the marking system was. The team were briefed on inspection protocol which included not interrupting the lessons they visited, how to enter a classroom, where to sit and how to leave politely. They drew up their own lesson observation timetable to ensure they visited lessons throughout the school (Reception to Y6) and visited at the appropriate times to observe any subjects that were their focus. Governors, staff and parents were asked to be interviewed and the children drew up a list of questions to ask these groups. They did this in pairs, taking it in turns to interview and to scribe the replies. Information was used from parents' interviews and also the pupils' questionnaire to identify issues to 'check out' in the inspection. I tried not influence any outcomes, but at the start of the inspection I did have to summarise our SEF and data for the team, so that they gained some insight into how the staff and governors thought the school was performing and what we were trying to achieve and why.

We set aside a day for the actual inspection and the staff were fully consulted and briefed beforehand as to who the team were, how they had been trained, protocol for visiting lessons, criteria used for judgements, headings for lesson observation sheets and so on. The training took place over about three weeks as we had to fit this around the children's lessons and our diaries, but could have been concertinaed into a much shorter time. The children all responded very well and took their new roles very seriously, fiercely debating their evidence and being anxious to make unbiased, accurate and fair judgements. They particularly enjoyed seeing what goes on in other classrooms and were very reflective in their discussions.

After the inspection day the children discussed their findings and differences with the team, totalled all their lesson observation grades (1-4) and gave overall judgements for learning and behaviour management. They coordinated and wrote the report in the ICT suite, using the following headings, which were current at the time:

• How well the school is run

• School environment

• Pupils' well-being

• School's performance

Each section was given an agreed grade. The children published the report to the local authority, governors, pupils and parents, with their own covering letter to parents and pupils. Their findings certainly indicated that there were issues to address. We did this through assemblies and School Council meetings and the discussion was very helpful, to both me and the staff. The School Council agenda had never been so busy.

Our parent body, usually proactive and vociferous, didn't feedback at all. On further questioning, we found that our parents thought it was a great initiative or were rather bemused by the idea generally, but importantly, nobody was negative at all. The staff and governors thought the children's findings were much more accurate than the Ofsted report we had received. The children sent a copy to Christine Gilbert, who was at the time, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. They didn't receive a reply - not even an acknowledgement. Our pupils were not impressed. An acknowledgement to the children would have been the least one might have expected.

However, the idea was picked up by Mike Baker, who was then the education journalist for The Guardian, who was very interested and most supportive. We were excited to read about ourselves in a national newspaper and the children duly corresponded with him.

Overall, the children's inspection was judged a success but I identified improvements for the following year and so did the pupils. We used their ideas in the evaluation to modify the process for the next year. For example, we identified a better time span for the project, more time to understand data and so on.

So the second time around was more carefully scheduled into the whole school diary and our SIP's diary, beginning more promptly after the SATs to ensure we had more time to report and consider the findings. This information was then used to inform the school SEF - very helpful evidence and also to inform our school improvement plan. The second year was much easier to plan, as of course the formats were already in place, staff knew what to expect and the children were experienced in the concept. It had also changed the philosophy of the school, in that pupil voice had been further strengthened and we all felt that, in many ways, the children's judgements were as important and accurate, if not more, than any Ofsted might have to offer.

The second year we ran the inspection, everyone was more efficient. We even used some of the first year's team to help us to train the new team. These children had all really enjoyed being inspectors, and as a result, in subsequent years, it was difficult to keep the inspection team to a manageable number. The quality of reporting also improved significantly, with greater emphasis on the careful recording on lesson observation sheets. Lesson objectives were more clearly identified on the sheets, lesson observation sheets were better completede.g.. 'the children enjoyed the lesson because of the teacher using drama to make it more lively'. We also encouraged the children to reflect on what they saw and offer suggestions as to how something might be improved e.g. 'the class would have concentrated better if the school had provided better black-out blinds so that the screen could be more easily seen on a sunny day'. Note to the Governors' Premises Committee for further funding!

The Lead Inspector for our third Ofsted inspection (Feb 2009) was very interested in what the children had reported in previous years and we were thrilled to be given 'outstanding' in all aspects. As you might expect, despite this heady achievement, the following children's annual inspection, in the summer of that year, was much more critical - clearly work still needed to be done, no 'resting on our laurels here.

So…don't wait for Ofsted or anyone else to tell you about your school - get the children to do so instead, but you have to trust their judgement and act on their findings.

Good luck! Do contact me if you are interested or would like help.